Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Wales is leading the UK’s clean energy mission and secured two major projects in the UK Government’s contracts for difference scheme last week: Erebus, which is Wales’s first floating offshore wind project in the Celtic sea, and Awel y Môr offshore wind farm, off the coast of north Wales. It is the most successful auction round in European history, and a huge vote of confidence in Wales’s clean energy sector, which will deliver thousands of good jobs.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da. I was delighted to see the Erebus project in the Celtic sea secure a contract for difference in the highly successful auction round. It is fantastic news for the floating offshore wind sector—the new frontier in renewable energy generation—and for local supply chains. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need long-term investment in those supply chains, not just in Wales but in the closest land mass to most of the Celtic sea projects, which is Cornwall, so that our Welsh cousins can support the unleashing of the Cornish Celtic tiger?
Jo Stevens
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that investment in our offshore wind sector is integral to realising our potential as a clean energy superpower, and to creating thousands of high-skilled jobs in Wales and among our Celtic cousins in Cornwall. That is why last week’s auction round was such an historic moment, and why this Labour Government have announced a landmark £1 billion clean energy supply chain fund to deliver offshore wind, with £300 million from Great British Energy, £400 million from the Crown Estate and £300 million from the offshore wind industry.
Bill Esterson
The Secretary of State quite rightly mentioned the jobs and growth that will result from the projects at Awel y Môr and Erebus in the Celtic sea, but the price in auction round 7 was 40% lower than the equivalent for new gas-fired power stations, and Putin’s latest remarks have reminded us of the volatility of the gas price. Does she agree that Welsh consumers will benefit from cheaper bills, and that the projects will give us greater security, as well as the benefits she outlined earlier?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This was the most successful auction round in European history, as I have mentioned. Awel y Môr is the first offshore wind project in Wales to win a contract in over a decade, and Erebus will be Wales’s first floating offshore wind farm. These projects will power almost 1 million homes and bring £2.6 billion of investment to Welsh coastal and industrial communities, but as he says, and most importantly, they will create thousands of jobs and bring down bills as we produce more, cheaper clean energy and gain our energy independence.
Steve Race
I, too, congratulate the Government and welcome last week’s announcement of the most successful European auction round to date. It is great news for the UK and for our action on climate change, and it bodes well for the full Celtic sea floating offshore wind opportunity, which is important for Exeter, the wider south-west and Wales too. Will the Secretary of State explain how this landmark step forward for offshore wind will mean new jobs and lower bills for constituents in Exeter, Wales and right across the country?
Jo Stevens
The Celtic sea is at the frontier of our green energy revolution. The capacity for offshore wind will support over 5,000 new jobs and bring billions of pounds of investment. Erebus is a test and demonstration project and will kick-start the early development of FLOW in Wales, ahead of larger projects being advanced through the Crown Estate’s three FLOW sites in the Celtic sea that have been leased to Equinor, Gwynt Glas and Ocean Winds. I cannot stress enough that this is a once-in-a-century opportunity for Wales, as it is for the south-west. That is why this Labour Government are doing whatever it takes to realise that potential.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When it comes to clean energy, I think we are all delighted to see that a new nuclear power plant will be constructed in Wales. Does the Minister agree that it is worse than a crying shame—in fact, it is a disgrace—that the Scottish Government set their face totally against any nuclear developments in Scotland, such as at Dounreay in my constituency?
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, particularly as it is Nuclear Week this week. We have announced the new fleet of small modular reactors at Wylfa, which are expected to support 3,000 jobs at peak construction and to power up to 3 million homes, with the capacity for further fleets in the future. I am not sure why the Scottish Government refuse investment in nuclear. Not only do they waste money, but they refuse investment and jobs in their own country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her answers, and she is absolutely right to develop green energy and clean energy. The Irish sea separates Northern Ireland and Wales, and the winds blow up and down the west coast of England and Wales and the east coast of Northern Ireland, which is something we can all take advantage of. Has she had an opportunity to discuss working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and others to take advantage of that, and to discuss the future potential for us all?
Jo Stevens
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that. We are investing in our green industries because that is how we will bring down bills for everybody, secure our energy supplies for everybody, and create jobs and improve living standards for everybody.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Mid-Wales is beautiful, but plans for 200 metre tall wind turbines in Radnor forest—turbines twice the height of Big Ben—will blight the landscape, impact local communities and harm the area’s vital tourism sector, and we are seeing similar proposals across Brecon and Radnorshire. The concerns of local communities, businesses and councils must be properly considered in planning decisions for energy infrastructure, not simply overridden by Government Ministers in Cardiff Bay to meet their own agenda. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Member obviously does not want energy bills to come down, does not want jobs in mid-Wales and does not want the investment to happen. Labour is the only party committed to our renewable energy revolution. Plaid, the Greens and the Lib Dems all try to block renewable infrastructure, while the SNP rejects the jobs, as we have just heard; and now the Tories and Reform do not want this revolution, but want to scrap net zero altogether.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Secretary of State has been highly critical of the legitimate concerns that my constituents have raised about the numerous wind farm proposals across mid-Wales. Now the Ministry of Defence has raised its concerns that at least one of the proposed wind farms has the potential to form a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military activities at the Sennybridge training area. If the Labour Government will not listen to the concerns raised by my residents, will they at least listen to their own military?
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but can I suggest that he raises that with Defence Ministers? If he would like to contact me afterwards, I am happy to raise that with the Secretary of State for Defence.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. On 9 January, Consumer Energy Solutions went into administration, and 300 people across Wales lost their jobs. In my constituency alone, more than 40 households have told me that they have been left in limbo, often without heating or hot water, and many of these people are elderly or ill. Given that the right hon. Member’s Government scrapped the energy company obligation 4 scheme abruptly, what support will be provided to make sure that householders are not left to pay after CES walks away?
Jo Stevens
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the matter, and I really do feel for people who have found themselves in this situation, including her constituents, through absolutely no fault of their own. She will know that we inherited this scheme from the Conservative Government, and both ECO and the Great British insulation schemes had well-documented problems, which is why we took decisive action to end them. We are urgently working with scheme providers to ensure that customers of Consumer Energy Solutions are supported, and we will provide further updates as soon as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts
We are expecting an announcement on the warm homes plan, which is of course to be welcomed, but we cannot rerun the errors of ECO4. An investigation by the National Audit Office into wall insulation revealed fraud and shoddy work. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in calling for a public investigation into ECO4 air source heat pumps and solar panels, so we get a full, independent evaluation of the incidence of bad practice, questionable profits and fraud?
Jo Stevens
I simply say what I have already said to the right hon. Lady, which is that we inherited these schemes; they had well-documented problems, and that is why we have taken decisive action to end them. She will have seen our announcement today on the warm homes plan and the £15 billion fund to help people across the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I hold a range of discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Government, including about our crucial investment in the Welsh rail network. We are investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail to right years of underfunding by previous Tory Governments. That will mean new stations, and more and faster trains on the key lines in north and south Wales and into England to improve cross-border connectivity, create jobs and boost economic growth.
Ann Davies
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. The Treasury has confirmed that Northern Powerhouse Rail will again be classified as an England and Wales project, again depriving Wales of £1 billion in funding. Instead, we are being asked to celebrate £445 million being spent over 10 years in east Wales. This decision means no electrification beyond Cardiff, no new station for St Clears, even though it was promised through the levelling-up fund, and no upgrades for Carmarthen station. What influence can the Secretary of State bring to bear on the Treasury, so that the 1.5 million people who live outside the investment area, who are excluded, get the funding that they deserve?
Jo Stevens
Heavy rail projects in both countries are classified as England and Wales whether the track is in Wales, England or both. They do not attract Barnett consequentials because heavy rail is reserved. Examples of such projects include Padeswood in north Wales and the regeneration of Cardiff Central station. Surely the hon. Lady knows that the economic corridor between north Wales and the north-west is vital for regional integration and the economic growth of north Wales. The scheme paves the way for more services, more regular services and faster services across north Wales and the north-west.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Last year, the Welsh Labour Government introduced a £1 bus fare cap for young people. Since then, these reduced fares have been used on 2 million journeys. Earlier this month, Welsh Labour announced in my constituency that after the Senedd election in May, we will build on that success with a £2 bus fare for all fares and more than 100 new routes across Wales. Would my right hon. Friend join me in supporting this announcement, and can she update the House on what else the UK and Welsh Labour Governments are doing together to improve Wales’s transport infrastructure?
Jo Stevens
The introduction of the £1 bus fare cap for young people, and now a £2 cap on all fares from the Welsh Labour Government, has been great news; it will help everyone with the cost of living. The 100 new bus routes right across Wales, which will be introduced if Welsh Labour are re-elected in May, will further help people take advantage of the new opportunities and jobs that we are creating across Wales. All this has been made possible because there are two Labour Governments working together for Wales. Our record-breaking Budget settlement for the Welsh Government has delivered nearly £6 billion more in spending power, enabling them to invest more in transport and other public services.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Following a freedom of information request, several questions at the Dispatch Box and my pre-Christmas letter to the Secretary of State, a serious explanation of railway funding in Wales is still lacking. Previously, she said in the Chamber:
“We are investing…to right the years of underfunding”—[Official Report, 16 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 282.]
She told the Welsh Affairs Committee that there was
“widespread agreement… and many others have expressed similar sentiments.”
That is not evidence of underfunding; it is an opinion. Will she finally tell the House what method she is using to form her opinion, and will she outline how much Network Rail intends to invest in Welsh railways?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Member will know very well from my reply to her letter that her assertion is fundamentally wrong, because she is using a combination of operations, maintenance, renewals and enhancement funding to reach the total figure provided under Conservative Governments. The Labour Government have announced nearly £500 million of investment in Welsh rail, specifically and solely in enhancement funding. That money is being front-loaded in this spending review period to deliver new stations and more and faster trains as soon as possible. She should carry on trying desperately to defend her party’s appalling record in government, because all she is doing is reminding everybody about it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
The UK and Welsh Governments are working closely together to support the agricultural sector, particularly when it comes to cross-border movements and disease control. As always, our message to farmers is to remain vigilant, vaccinate where possible, source responsibly and test. Through that approach, we can minimise disruption.
John Whitby
Given the integrated nature of livestock markets across England and Wales, farmers in my constituency still face challenges from restrictions linked to bluetongue. What discussions have occurred with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government about minimising disruption to cross-border livestock movements arising from bluetongue testing and certification requirements?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the integrated nature of livestock markets across Wales and England. I reassure him that the Government are working together with the Welsh Government on all animal health-related issues, including bluetongue. I regularly speak to my colleague Huw Irranca-Davies, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, on these matters. Through that collective effort, we have ensured that livestock movements can continue, but I stress once again the importance of being vigilant, vaccinating, sourcing responsibly and testing.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
What assessment has the Minister made of the value of a single, UK-wide digital livestock traceability system, to support Welsh farmers and reduce welfare and compliance risks for Northern Ireland processors who rely on Welsh farmers?
Anna McMorrin
I am sorry; it was very hard to hear the question. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that our new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Wales to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing cost to business and improving consumer choice.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Welsh language broadcasting plays a critical role in shaping Welsh identity and culture. S4C has played a vital role in helping to revitalise the language, and ensures that it is kept relevant among the ever-growing number of people who speak it, not just in Wales but around the world. Its essential contribution is reflected in the BBC charter review Green Paper, published just last month.
Torcuil Crichton
Welsh does very well out of broadcasting, but I am glad that the Western Isles are well represented on the airwaves just now. The stand-out star of this season’s “The Traitors” is Stephen Libby from the Isle of Lewis—I think he is going to win it this weekend. I am glad that Gaelic has its place in the Government’s Green Paper on broadcasting, but the UK Government give S4C £7.5 million a year to develop digital broadcasting, while BBC Alba, the Scottish channel, gets nothing. Will the Minister join me in my efforts to get the UK Government to re-engage with Gaelic broadcasting as a cultural and economic dynamo?
Anna McMorrin
I think we are all glued to “The Traitors” this season. With the exodus from the Tory Benches to Reform, it is hard not to believe that we are living through a real-life “Traitors”. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Welsh and Gaelic were the first languages of their nations, and have a strong social, cultural and economic significance. As a Welsh speaker, I know just how important that is. The Government recognise the contribution that MG Alba makes to the lives of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and the UK. My hon. Friend will be aware of the BBC charter review launched in December; it will consider how the BBC can best support minority languages, including Gaelic.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Minister will be aware that Ofcom is consulting on a draft code of practice on the prominence of public service broadcasters on digital platforms. Does she agree that it is essential that S4C is included in any measures that come out of that consultation, so that it is given greater prominence on smart TVs and other digital platforms?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member raises a very important point—one that I regularly discuss with S4C and my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is fantastic news that last week, the BBC and S4C announced plans for a major new streaming partnership, giving greater prominence to S4C on iPlayer, but I know that there is more to do on this issue, and I will continue to work with my colleagues and broadcasters on this matter.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence from the chief executive officer and chair of S4C last week, and it was good to hear their plans for the future. What discussions has the Minister had with S4C and other broadcasters to further the development of the Welsh language across Wales and beyond?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for her question about the importance and sustainability of S4C, which is, crucially, reflected in the BBC charter review, launched in December. I will continue to have those conversations with my colleagues, both here and in the Welsh Government, and with the broadcasters.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
The Government are absolutely determined to lower the cost of living for families across Wales and the whole UK. That is why we are benefiting 69,000 children in Wales by scrapping the two-child limit. It is why we are slashing household energy bills by an average of £150 a year, and why we are again increasing the national minimum and living wage, building on the previous increase, which boosted the incomes of up to 160,000 workers in Wales.
Rachel Taylor
The latest interest rate cut—the sixth since Labour formed this Government—is great news for mortgage holders in Wales, North Warwickshire and Bedworth and across the UK, bringing down the cost of family mortgages by almost £1,400 a year. Will the Secretary of State update the House on how this Government’s policies are helping to strengthen our economy and improve the cost of living as a result?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Government are supporting people across Wales and the UK with the cost of living. In comparison with when we came into government, households that take out a new mortgage are saving around £1,400 a year on their mortgage repayments. We have also increased the state pension by 4.8%, which will take effect in April, benefiting 700,000 pensioners across Wales. We have also uprated the universal credit standard allowance by over 6%—the first ever permanent real-terms increase—benefiting 320,000 households in Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
The cost of living is still a major concern for my constituents in Llanelli, so I very much welcome the decision by this Labour Government to give households £150 to help with their domestic energy bills, but can the Secretary of State explain exactly who is eligible and when and how they will receive the money?
Jo Stevens
Energy bills are a significant issue for people across the country. That is why, thanks to this Labour Government, from April this year all households will see an average £150 reduction in costs on their energy bills. Energy suppliers will pass on the savings automatically to households.
My hon. Friend will have seen today the launch of our warm homes plan, which is a £15 billion fund. In Wales, it will make grants available for households to replace gas boilers with heat pumps, and it will mean stronger standards for landlords who privately rent homes, so that they are safer, warmer and more affordable to run.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Wales could be disproportionately affected by US tariffs, which could be a challenge for many Welsh businesses—the words of Labour First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan in correspondence to the Prime Minister. There has been lots of talk about traitors, but over the past 27 years we, the Conservatives, are the ones who have seriously scrutinised, challenged and exposed the failings of Welsh Labour, which is clearly propped up by Plaid and the Lib Dems. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the two fabled Labour Governments who simply cannot work together who are making the cost of living and unemployment worse in Wales?
Jo Stevens
Wages are up, and inward investment is up. Inactivity is down on the year, and unemployment is down on the year. We have also had six cuts in interest rates, meaning that families taking out a new mortgage are £1,400 a year better off than they were under the Tories.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
As two Governments, we are committed to working together to keep cross-border arrangements fair, transparent and patient-centred. I am proud that last year’s spending review saw the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution. Working in partnership, we will fix the NHS and make it fit for the future.
Shaun Davies
The incredible Lingen Davies cancer charity provides lifesaving and life-changing cancer care, working with the NHS to support patients across Wales, Telford and wider Shropshire. The charity and the NHS have plans to double the capacity of cancer treatment. I am proud to support this campaign. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister meet me to discuss how they, the Welsh Government and the Welsh NHS can work together to double cancer treatment capacity across our area?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work of the Lingen Davies charity. I understand that its appeal is seeking to raise £5 million to grow cancer care awareness in his area. The Government are committed to catching cancer earlier and treating it faster. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the charity’s fundraising campaign.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Powys health board has been categorising the needs of its patients based on cost rather than clinical need, and that is causing a real problem for the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the associated Headley Court veterans’ centre, because they need to prioritise patients based on clinical need, not whether Powys health board will pay for them this year. What is the Secretary of State doing about Powys health board to ensure that patients are treated according to clinical need and in a way that my hospital trust can manage?
Anna McMorrin
I can certainly write to the hon. Member with the detail of what we are doing about the Powys health board. I can assure her that this Government are committed to working with the Welsh Government to ensure that cross-border arrangements are fair and transparent and focused on patient need. These are two Labour Governments working together in partnership and delivering together.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
In recent days, I have spoken extensively to our international allies, including European leaders and others, the US and NATO. We will continue to engage constructively to resolve issues, particularly those relating to international security, applying the principles and values that I set out on Monday.
In addition, this week, the Government have announced a landmark investment to support children with special educational needs, overhauled our water system, and today launched a £15 billion plan to create warm homes. At home and abroad, this Labour Government are delivering for the British people.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Sandher
We face an affordability crisis in this country. In the short term, our dependence on fossil fuels has led to a rise in energy bills, and in the longer term, the aftershocks of Thatcher mean that there are not enough good, non-graduate jobs. That is why today’s warm homes plan is such good news: batteries, solar, home insulation; getting bills down and wages rising; making life affordable. But we must go further, so can I ask the Prime Minister to do even more to make sure that life is affordable for my constituents—
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I know how much he cares about making life affordable. We are taking £150 off energy bills. That is £300 for the 6 million poorest families, including almost 3,700 households in his constituency. The warm homes plan we are announcing today is the biggest ever public investment in upgrading British homes. It will lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, tackling the cost of living. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister following our lead on children accessing social media. In particular, I thank the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 61 Labour MPs and the Greater Manchester Mayor for forcing him to think again.
The Prime Minister and I agree: the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the Prime Minister made that point to President Trump on Monday, did the President agree or disagree?
The Prime Minister
Engaging constructively on international security matters hugely, particularly when it comes to security in the Arctic, and that is the context in which this discussion about Greenland is going on. As we engage constructively, I have made my position clear on our principles and values. The first of those is that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The second is that threats of tariffs to pressurise allies are completely wrong. We will continue to engage constructively. I have had many international calls in recent days, and the Prime Minister of Denmark is coming to the United Kingdom tomorrow for bilateral talks. I want to be clear with the House: I will not yield—Britain will not yield—on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs, and that is my clear position.
Mrs Badenoch
I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America, but does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?
The Prime Minister
I made my position on Greenland absolutely clear on Monday and a moment ago. President Trump deployed words on Chagos yesterday that were different to his previous words of welcome and support when I met him in the White House. He deployed those words yesterday for the express purpose of putting pressure on me and Britain in relation to my values and principles on the future of Greenland. He wants me to yield on my position and I am not going to do so. Given that that was his express purpose, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has jumped on the bandwagon. I had understood—[Interruption.] I had understood her position to be that she supported the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. Now she appears to support words by President Trump to undermine the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. She has chosen naked opportunism over the national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
We will note that when I asked him what the President told him, he could not tell us. Now he expects us to believe that he knows what is going on in President Trump’s mind. Let me remind him that his Deputy Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, used to say that if President Trump did not like the deal, it would not go ahead. Let us look at what President Trump actually said. The Chagos deal is
“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,
and a sign of “total weakness.” We did not need President Trump to tell us that; we have been saying that for 12 months.
Let us remind the Prime Minister: President Trump thought that the Prime Minister was doing this for money. The Prime Minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why does he not just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
The words from President Trump were expressly intended to put pressure on me to yield on my principles. What he said about Chagos was literally in the same sentence as what he said about Greenland. That was his purpose. The future of Greenland is a binary issue that is splitting the world at the moment, with material consequences. I have been clear and consistent in my position on the future of Greenland: the future is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The Leader of the Opposition has taken three positions in 10 days. Ten days ago she said that Greenland was “a second order issue”; four days ago she said she supported our position on Greenland; and now she is backing arguments intended to undermine our position—Britain’s position—on Greenland. This is an important national moment and yet again the Leader of the Opposition has shown that she is uncapable of rising to it.
Mrs Badenoch
I have already told the Prime Minister that we agree on Greenland; I am asking about the Chagos deal. That money—that £35 billion—should go to the armed forces. The world is changing and we are in a very different place—the most dangerous international environment since the end of the cold war. Last week, the head of the armed forces—not me, the head of the armed forces—warned that our military faces a £28 billion shortfall. Is he right?
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we are spending more on defence than at any time since the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] The strategic defence review has backed the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is £270 billion this Parliament, making defence an engine of growth. That is a stark contrast. Ben Wallace, the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary, openly admitted that under the Conservatives’ watch our armed forces were “hollowed out”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bowie and Mr Cartlidge, it is continuous, week in and week out. There are a couple on the Government Benches who will also be going out for a cup of tea with you. Please, calm it down or you know the consequence.
The Prime Minister
They shout on a Wednesday and they defect on a Thursday. The loudest shouter used to be the former shadow Justice Secretary. We should take a note of who is shouting most loudly this week.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to get through this Prime Minister’s questions. I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition and I want to hear the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Those who do not may leave the Chamber.
Mrs Badenoch
We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his Front Bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is claiming strength. She read the guy’s defection letter and then at that point decided to sack him. What was she going to do? Correct the typos and give it back to him? [Hon. Members: “More!”] She should have sacked him when he made disgraceful comments about faces in Birmingham, but she failed to do so. And she smiles, saying it is a good thing she has cleared out—a good thing there are fewer Tory MPs. The rest of the country agrees with her completely in relation to that.
On the question of veterans protection, the last Government passed legislation that was struck down, leaving our veterans utterly exposed. We are putting in place proper measures to protect them.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am telling Members now, I am having no more. Do we understand each other? Thank you.
Mrs Badenoch
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?
The Prime Minister
I have spent the week working with our NATO allies to protect our national security and ensure we have unity in NATO. That is a matter of national importance, and the right hon. Lady has utterly failed to rise to the occasion and show the solidarity she could have shown in this House. She has spent the week trying to hold together what is left of the Tory party. She says I should learn from her. She has no judgment! Only a week ago, in relation to Greenland, she shrugged and said it was some “second order issue”. Terrible judgment! Then she flip-flopped with three different positions in 10 days on Greenland. She said Liz Truss’s mini-Budget was “100% right”. She said last week that she was “100% confident” there would be no more defections, just before the latest defection. I am beginning to think her judgment is not 100% reliable.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to confirm that last week saw the second biggest fall in NHS waiting times for 15 years. Waiting lists are down by more than 300,000, an extra 2,900 GPs have been recruited, and ambulances are arriving nearly 15 minutes faster this winter than they were last year. There is much more to do, which is why we are delivering the biggest upgrade to our ambulance fleet for many years. That progress has been made possible by Labour’s decisions, which are opposed by the opposition parties.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We remember how Tony Blair ignored warnings from these opposition Benches and tied himself to an unpopular American President and a disastrous foreign policy, while close allies such as Canada and France looked on in horror. With Donald Trump increasingly acting like a crime boss running a protection racket, threatening to smash up our economy unless he gets his hands on Greenland, will the Prime Minister avoid Blair’s historic mistake, take our advice this time and join Prime Minister Carney and President Macron in standing up far more strongly to President Trump?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is clearly not listening. I said that I will not yield on the principles and values that I uphold, and that this country upholds, in relation to the future of Greenland. But the relationship with the US matters, especially on defence, security and intelligence, and nuclear capability, and also on trade and prosperity. While he is trying to get soundbites, we must not forget that a war is raging in Europe—it is in its fourth year. The Russians are raining bombs down on Ukrainian civilians day and night, the temperature was minus 20° in Kyiv last night, and 60% of the people there are without power. People are erecting tents to keep themselves warm. We have to work with our allies, including the US, on security guarantees to ensure that we can do what we must do in relation to Ukraine. That does not mean we agree with the US on everything, and I have been absolutely clear about my position on Greenland and my position on tariffs, but it is foolhardy to think that we should rip up our relationship with the US and abandon Ukraine and so many of the other things that are important to our defence, security and intelligence.
Ed Davey
Of course we are not arguing that; we are arguing that the Prime Minister follows France and Canada—our close allies. Here is one thing that we can agree on: that the UK should strengthen our defensive capabilities, as the Prime Minister said earlier. But the Government are going far too slow in investing in our defensive industries. They have not even published the defence investment plan that was promised last autumn. That delay is putting critical industries, such as helicopter manufacturing based in Yeovil, at risk. Putin is waging a war in Europe, and Trump is threatening to undermine NATO. We have to rearm fast. So why will the Prime Minister not just get on with buying Great British helicopters made in the west country? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
The Prime Minister
That’s about the same cheer we hear across the whole country.
We are increasing defence spend to the biggest spend since the last Labour Government. We are doing that because of the decisions we took at the Budget in relation to the money that is available. The right hon. Member wants more money for defence spending, and he wants it faster, but what did he do at the Budget? Did he stand up and say, “I support this”? No, he voted against it, against the measures necessary to carry out the upgrade.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I send my deepest sympathies to Beryl’s family, and I will make sure that the Roads Minister meets them at the earliest opportunity. This shows why tackling potholes really matters. We are investing £2 billion in the east midlands to fix the roads and improve local transport. We are also putting in place tough new standards so that councils must prove they are fixing roads properly, and I am pleased that many excellent Labour councils across the country are leading by example.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
For decades, our rivers, lakes and seas have paid the price of a failing system. The water White Paper is a welcome first step in beginning to set things right, but there is a glaring gap: agricultural pollution contributes 40% of the pollution in our waterways but merits only a single page in this White Paper. Can the Prime Minister tell me why on earth this is the case? When will he start working with farmers to support river-friendly farming practices and treat agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution?
The Prime Minister
We inherited a real mess on water, and we are taking the most effective and far-reaching measures to deal with it. I wonder what the hon. Lady, as someone who stood to lead her party, makes of how her leader is responding to this global uncertainty. He is saying that this is the time to withdraw from NATO; that this is the time to kick the US out of our military bases; that this is the time to negotiate—hear this—with Putin to give up our nuclear deterrent. I am sure that Putin would be very quick on the line for that one. It is as reckless and irresponsible as their plan to legalise heroin and crack cocaine. That is the Green party now—high on drugs, soft on Putin.
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not ask the Opposition questions. These are questions for the Prime Minister, not the other way around.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased that we are backing my hon. Friend’s home town of Clydebank with £20 million of Pride in Place funding. Just this week we hosted a reception to meet people who are working hard to change their neighbourhoods across the United Kingdom. That is Labour delivering on national renewal. As my hon. Friend rightly says, compare that with the SNP, which is more interested in squabbling over independence than using a record settlement to fix Scotland’s public services.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister
We delivered a record settlement for Northern Ireland in the Budget to strengthen public services and to kick-start growth. The local growth fund, designed in partnership with the Executive, will see £45 million every year to support local growth. I am very happy to make sure that Ministers meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his particular concerns.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to Jessica and all the women, and others, who are campaigning on these vital issues. Far too many women are left waiting for care in serious pain. That is why we are investing £8 million in research on diagnosis, treatment and pain management. I know that the Minister for women’s health will be keen to talk to my hon. Friend about her proposals on this issue, which I thank her for raising.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, and I am truly sorry to hear about his constituent. If he would not mind following up with the details of the case, I will make sure that it is dealt with urgently on behalf of his constituent.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I congratulate Kevin and thank police across our country who are working hard to protect our communities? The Conservative party decimated local policing, and we are restoring it. There will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police on our streets by spring, which is an example of the change that people will feel this year. Our Crime and Policing Bill will give officers more powers to tackle knife crime, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. I want officers to have those powers as swiftly as possible; the Tories and Reform voted against them.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That comes from the party that broke our criminal justice system, just as it broke our economy and our NHS. It hollowed out local policing; we are restoring it, with 3,000 new officers in the spring of this year.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have made our position clear. I have set out my principles, and I am not going to yield on those principles. As I said on Monday, of course we need to protect our national interest, and we will always protect our national interest, but simply hurtling into a trade war at the first opportunity would hurt working people and businesses across the country. That is why I am working hard to ensure that we do not get to that point, and I will continue to act in the national interest.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister may be aware that my local authority in the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded per pupil for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and his local authority in Camden is the highest—an inequality that he has repeatedly pledged to end. Well, the results are in: next year, children in my local area will receive just under £1,000, and children in his local area will receive over £3,800. The gap is getting wider. Will he explain to the House why he thinks that children in my constituency are worth so much less than children in his?
The Prime Minister
We are applying their formula—the one that you put in place in government—[Interruption.] We are changing it—[Interruption.] Special educational needs are probably raised with me more than any other issue that is raised in the House. We are proposing reforms. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, Prime Minister, but Mr Holden, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, you will be getting the express train out of here.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may be making himself the next candidate for the Thursday defections—[Interruption.] Oh, maybe it is someone else. Those that shout loudest end up on the Reform UK Bench—[Interruption.] Reform is supporting our recycling moves, because soon it will be a party entirely made up of—
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I was humbled to visit Greater Manchester police after the Heaton Park synagogue attack. The professionalism and bravery that they showed was remarkable. We have boosted total police funding and Greater Manchester will receive up to £902 million, an increase of over £31 million. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with her and local leaders to make our streets safe.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
My constituency of Melksham and Devizes does not have a minor injuries unit, leaving many to travel far afield, to Bath or Swindon, to access A&E services. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss the need for an expanded hospital provision in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this on behalf of his constituents. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to talk through his particular concerns, so that we can seek to address them.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Labour is boosting funding for councils that were chronically underfunded by the Conservatives. I pay tribute to Labour councils delivering results for my hon. Friend’s community, in stark contrast to the division and chaos we have seen from Reform councils, wherever they have been elected.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?
The Prime Minister
The situation is completely unacceptable. We welcome Ofwat’s investigation into the company—that is the right thing to do. The Environment Secretary met company bosses last week to stress the need for accountability, and Ministers are continuing to chair daily meetings, but the situation is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of this Labour Government delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We are ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, plus we have changes to parental leave and sick pay. Workers will benefit from those rights in April, and they should never forget that Reform and the Tories opposed every single one of them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
One of the last meetings that I took as shadow Justice Secretary was with the parents of Lenny Scott. Lenny Scott was an exceptionally brave prison officer who uncovered corruption in his prison. He left the service, and years later he was hunted down and brutally murdered. Because he died after leaving active service, there was never any compensation paid to the children he left behind. I know that the Prime Minister would want to right that wrong. I wrote to the Justice Secretary privately after I discovered this—I should say that Lenny Scott’s parents never asked for any support. Will the Prime Minister correct this, ensure that this brave man’s children have the support that they need as they grow up without the father they deserve, and join me in thanking all the brave men and women who serve us in our Prison Service?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I will make sure that it is looked into as a matter of urgency, given the circumstances that he has set out.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is an issue of real concern to parents. As the father of two teenage children, I know just how much of a concern it is. That is why we will have a consultation to look at expert and international evidence to get this right, and we will respond by the summer. That includes looking at the question of the age at which children can access social media and at restrictions on addictive features. I am also concerned, as is the Education Secretary, about the screen time of those under the age of five. We will look at all those issues and make sure that Ofsted checks the enforcement of bans during school.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Bertie Arms is a fantastic family pub, but because of the Chancellor’s tax raid on local business, it faces a 2,000% increase in its business rates by 2029. That means that the Treasury will lose £200,000 in tax take and Uffington will lose the heart of its community. The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes on working people, so how does he justify a 2,000% tax attack on working family businesses like this pub?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector to put in the necessary support. I remind the hon. Lady that 7,000 pubs closed on the Conservatives’ watch, and she did not say a word about it.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Since day one, my hon. Friend has fought for her constituents on this issue, and I pay tribute to her for that. I agree that the University of East Anglia would be an excellent candidate for any future additional funded dentistry places available. We are also reforming contracts and making sure that dentists spend more time working in the NHS, delivering thousands of extra appointments to fix the failure we were left with.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Children with disabilities and special educational needs in Somerset will be severely hit if the Government go ahead with removing the remoteness uplift from authorities. Will the Government commit to ensuring that councils with the largest land areas—of which Somerset is one—are properly reimbursed for the costs of remoteness, so that children in my constituency do not suffer?
The Prime Minister
We understand the challenges in rural communities, and we will look at that as part of the work we are doing on reform.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not have responsibility for answers from the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not want that responsibility. How the Prime Minister answers questions is up to him, which is why I closed him down and said that he is not there to ask questions of your party. I think we will leave it at that; I am not continuing the debate at this stage.
Warm Homes Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the warm homes plan, which we publish today. It is a plan focused on the No. 1 issue facing our country, which is the cost of living crisis, and on the scourge of fuel poverty, which affects millions of families across Britain.
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took an average of £150 off the costs of energy bills from April. This winter, we have expanded the warm home discount to a total of six million families, and today, we allocate £15 billion in our warm homes plan. That represents a more than doubling of public investment in home upgrades compared with the last Parliament—in fact, it is the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history to cut bills and tackle fuel poverty.
In making this investment, we turn the page on the lost decade of the last Government’s failure, with home insulation levels falling by more than 90% between 2010 and 2024, the promise of minimum energy efficiency standards for renters broken, the cancellation of the zero carbon homes standard, the repeated failures of schemes such as the green deal, the green homes grant and the energy company obligation scheme, and—worst of all—our dependence on fossil fuels leaving us exposed to the worst energy bills crisis in generations. The last Government failed time after time; this Government are doing the work to put it right.
The starting point for this plan is that clean energy is the right choice, not only for energy security and reducing emissions, but for cutting people’s bills. The public agree: they are showing record demand for technologies such as solar, batteries and heat pumps that can save families hundreds of pounds a year. Heat pump sales in Britain have grown by around 50% annually—it is one of the fastest-growing markets in Europe—and last year saw a record number of rooftop solar installations. The driving purpose of this plan is to ensure those benefits are available, not just to the wealthiest, but to families throughout our country at every level of income. The driving purpose of this Labour Government is to stand up for working people and tackle the affordability crisis.
Let me set out the measures we are announcing in our plan today. First, today we announce £5 billion of public investment to directly deliver home upgrades for low-income families. This will help families living in social housing and low-income owner-occupiers to have warmer homes and lower bills. In setting out this plan, we are abolishing the failed ECO scheme and making the principled decision that we should fund support through public investment, not levies on bills. Our plan also pays heed to all the evidence that says that funding is best delivered with local authorities and mayors in the driving seat—with those representing local people delivering for local people.
At the same time, we recognise the challenges facing suppliers who used to deliver the ECO scheme, so we will ensure that this extra money is used to help support them. The Minister for Energy Consumers will convene a working group of contractors, social housing providers and local authorities to oversee this work. Overall, this allocation is the biggest public investment in tackling fuel poverty in our history.
Secondly, it is a scandal that 1.6 million children live in private accommodation are suffering from cold, damp or mould, according to Citizens Advice. We on the Government Benches believe in a simple principle: if someone rents a home, private or social, their landlord has a responsibility to ensure it is safe, warm and affordable to heat. The last Government promised higher standards, and then they ripped up that promise. Today, we deliver. By 2030, private landlords will have to upgrade their properties to meet minimum standards of energy efficiency, and we have consulted on similar rules in the social rented sector, tackling the scourge of poor-quality rented homes and cutting bills for renters. These measures alone will lift more than half a million families out of fuel poverty.
Thirdly, it is right that we target help at those most in need, but we know the affordability crisis stretches well beyond those on low incomes. We want to make it easier for all households to cut their bills by choosing a heat pump, solar or batteries. Building on the steps we took at the Budget to make electricity cheaper, we are expanding the boiler upgrade scheme, increasing investment every year out to 2030. For the first time, we have a universal offer of £2,500 for a heat battery or air-to-air heat pump, as well as £7,500 to install a conventional heat pump, but I want to go further. Currently, just one in 20 homes in Britain has solar panels installed on the roof. We are determined to unleash a rooftop revolution, helping many more families to generate their own energy in order to cut their bills. I can announce that the Government are, for the first time ever, setting aside up to £2 billion to subsidise zero and low-interest loans for solar panels, batteries and other technologies, learning from the successful experience of other countries and meeting demand for this technology. That is just a first step, with a further £3 billion available for loans and investments over the coming years through our warm homes fund.
Fourthly, as we upgrade existing homes, we will ensure that new homes are built cheaper to run, with solar and clean heating as standard. That is just common sense. People cannot understand why we are building new homes with higher bills. The reason is that the previous Government refused to act. We are putting an end to this absurd situation. We will publish the future homes standard shortly. For the first time, solar panels will be fitted as standard in new homes. Alongside the other measures I have set out, this is designed to help treble the number of homes with solar by the end of the decade.
Fifthly, to make these changes happen, we cannot go on with the old system of accountability and delivery that has failed. People have had to navigate a fragmented and confusing system of home upgrades, delivered through a bewildering number of organisations and schemes. We need to face up to the fact that, after the previous Government’s repeated failures to deliver schemes effectively, we need a specialist body with the technical expertise and focus required. By consolidating functions from Ofgem and other organisations and abolishing Salix—there will be no increase in arm’s length bodies—we will establish a new warm homes agency. It will deliver impartial advice and guidance, work with local authorities and businesses and oversee Government schemes, and it will be backed by a reformed system of consumer protection. We will put an end to the scandalous failure of accountability and regulation, and waste of public money, that we saw under the previous Government.
Finally, we are determined to ensure that this roll-out delivers not just for consumers, but for workers. We are the largest producer of gas boilers in Europe, and there is a huge opportunity to harness this expertise to produce heat pumps, too. Manufacturers are already embracing this opportunity, including Ideal Heating in Hull, Vaillant in Derbyshire, which I visited last year, and Copeland in Northern Ireland, but currently less than 40% of heat pumps sold in Britain are made in Britain. We are setting a new aim of at least 70% of heat pumps installed in the UK being made in the UK, backed by a trebling of public investment in heat pump manufacturing, with £90 million set aside today.
Overall, we expect the warm homes plan to support up to 180,000 additional jobs in energy efficiency, heat pumps and heat networks by the end of the decade. That will create opportunities for builders, electricians, plumbers and installers, as well as new workers entering the industry. We will establish a new taskforce with the TUC, working with business, to ensure that those jobs are well paid and highly skilled, with a proper role for trade unions. Because we are a Labour Government, we expect the rights of working people to be at the heart of this industry’s future.
Taken together, these are the elements of a landmark plan that stands in a great reforming tradition of Labour Governments: after 1945, delivering on the promise of “homes for the people”, modernising the nation’s housing stock under Harold Wilson in the 1960s and introducing the decent homes standard for social housing in the 2000s, with each Labour Government meeting the rightful expectations of working people that the next generation can expect higher standards of living than the last. That is what this Government seek to do in our time, with a plan to cut bills for millions, help lift a million families out of fuel poverty, and create good jobs. I commend the statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement.
Today’s announcement is long overdue—overdue by an entire year, to be exact. During the general election, the Labour party claimed that it would cut household bills. This announcement should be part of that, but in that time, since the general election and on this Secretary of State’s watch, energy bills have not fallen; they have gone in the opposite direction. Energy bills are up by £200 since the election, partly as a result of the Secretary of State’s own political choices.
We believe that there is a greater role in our energy system for home batteries, we support a more technology-agnostic approach to air-to-air heat pumps, and, of course, we believe that rooftop solar is much better than carpeting the countryside in huge solar farms, but the Secretary of State is ignoring the core problem. We are in an electricity price crisis of his own making. Even if we are as charitable as possible and accept that the Government will reach the 5 million households who they say will benefit from this plan, it will do nothing to cut bills for 83% of the country. However, all those households will pay much higher taxes because of Labour’s Budget, including taxes to fund the Secretary of State’s £15 billion plan, and they are struggling with their energy bills now because of the choices of the Secretary of State.
Let me now turn to the specific measures in the plan. The Department’s own figures show that the public are becoming more sceptical about heat pumps. Between winter 2024 and spring 2025, the proportion of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%, and if you ask anyone why they do not want a heat pump, they will say it is because of the high up-front costs. [Interruption.] Yes, they will—but it is also because of the high ongoing running costs, which often make heat pumps more expensive to run than gas boilers.
There is a serious risk that the Government’s legally binding targets are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but all those families will be locked into sky-high running costs, because the Government have a political target that is pushing up electricity bills at the same time. This plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs. Indeed, last week the Government announced that they were locking the country into higher energy prices for decades through their botched wind auction. Just imagine that there was a plan on the table to cut the cost of running a heat pump by 20% instantly: a cheap power plan that would not involve raising taxes on working people to fund handouts; a plan that would axe the carbon tax, and scrap the Secretary of State’s rip-off wind subsidies to cut bills for every family in the country. Would that not be a far better approach to making make heat pumps much more attractive?
What steps will the Department take to ensure that low-interest loans will provide good value for money? How many homes will benefit from the low-interest and zero-interest loans scheme, and how will it be determined who gets a low-interest loan or a zero-interest loan?
As for the changes to the minimum energy efficiency standards for rented homes, the Secretary of State will know that the previous Government did more than any other to improve energy efficiency standards, with half of all homes having an energy performance certificate rating of C or above when we left office, compared to 14% when the Secretary of State left office in 2010. Has his Department carried out any impact assessment of what the 2030 deadline will cost landlords, and how much of the cost will be passed on to renters? His own Government’s data shows that it will cost more than £12,000 to upgrade a home from EPC E to C—£12,000 that will then be passed on to families in increased rents. We cannot ignore all the costs that this Government are imposing on the housing sector, and the impact that they will have on the cost of living for families.
The Government are going to set up a new quango, the warm homes agency, to administer these schemes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much this quango will cost the taxpayer, how it will be held accountable, and why he decided to spend money on setting up a new quango rather than those functions being delivered by his own Department, which he controls?
The Secretary of State has already been forced, by this House, to ban Great British Energy from spending taxpayers’ money on solar panels when there is evidence of forced labour in the supply chain, and of course we welcome that, but can he assure the House that he will apply that same ban on slave labour to solar panel installations funded by the warm homes plan? When will he publish details of how that mechanism will work, so that it can be scrutinised by the House?
The Government are ignoring the fact that the affordability crisis that the Secretary State talks about is a crisis of his own making. They are ignoring the fact that they are locking the country into paying higher bills for far longer. If they truly want to encourage people to adopt green technology, like heat pumps or electric vehicles, they need to make electricity cheap. They could adopt the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% and scrap the reckless clean power 2030 target, which is locking everyone into paying higher bills for far longer.
Ed Miliband
It is always a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). Let me make a few points to him, in the gentlest way I can. Let me deal first with his point about the cost of electricity. In her Budget, the Chancellor did more in one decision—namely, to transfer 75% of the renewables obligation to public spending to cut electricity costs—than the last Government did in 14 years in power.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is shouting about bills. Let me tell him that the average bill in 2025 was lower in real terms than in 2024, and so was the price cap, as he will know from the figures. I am incredibly proud that this Government, unlike the last Government, are taking £150 of costs off bills thanks to the Chancellor’s decision, funded by taxes on the wealthy—and the Conservatives oppose all those tax measures.
The hon. Gentleman talked about renters. I think that, basically, what I heard—and perhaps it should not surprise me—was that he is actually against the higher standards for renters. He would leave private renters languishing in cold, damp homes, which is what the Conservatives did during their 14 years in power. We are proud of the decision that we are making. Thanks to the brilliant work of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), we actually have a supportive quote from the landlords. Even the landlords want more action than the Conservative party when it comes to the renters! To amuse the House briefly, I will read out that quote. Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said:
“a clear roadmap for the reform of PRS MEES is welcome.”
Even the landlords are more on the side of renters than the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we were setting up the warm homes agency. I will tell him why. He said, “Wouldn’t it be better to do this within Government?” The Conservatives presided over a scandalous and shocking disaster in the ECO scheme, a mess that we are having to clear up. We are going to reform the system so that we have a proper agency with proper technical expertise to ensure that nothing like what they visited on thousands of families across the country ever happens again.
I like the hon. Gentleman, and I feel a bit of sympathy for him because he has nothing to say about this issue. Let us just be honest about this: the Conservatives failed over 14 years, and we are delivering.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State—very warmly—on the warm homes plan, and not least on the universal nature of the offer: the support for people in fuel poverty, the health co-benefits in addressing cold, damp and mould, and the availability of cheap finance so that everybody can take part in the technical solutions that are available.
The ECO scheme, which failed so badly, has left a legacy. May I encourage the Secretary of State to address the concerns among consumers, industry representatives and the workforce, and also not to lose sight of the benefits in reduced bills through insulation, particularly loft insulation? On the subject of cheaper bills, the Select Committee has heard again and again that if people are to benefit to the maximum extent from the warm homes plan, we have to see reductions in the price of electricity, and a reduction in the gap between the price of electricity and the price of gas. The Secretary of State mentioned some welcome measures in his statement—the £150 off bills in April being a very good start—but can he confirm that more action will be taken to bring down the cost of electricity, so that as many people as possible can benefit from the warm homes plan to the maximum extent?
Ed Miliband
Let me address my hon. Friend’s questions; he speaks with great knowledge on these issues. On the ECO scheme, I think he refers to the installers, and it is important to emphasise the point I made in my statement: we want the extra money—the £1.5 billion allocated at the Budget—to help the installers, because they are going to face a difficult transition. He raises an important issue.
As I said in reply to the shadow Minister, the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took in the Budget are important in cutting the cost of electricity. All the evidence I have seen says that, with the right tariff, running a heat pump is cheaper than running a boiler. We continue to look at whether there are other ways we can bring down the cost of electricity, and my hon. Friend is right that we should do so.
On my hon. Friend’s point about insulation, my maxim is that the measures that will cut bills the most are what matters to me. I am not ideological about this. Whether it is insulation, heat pumps, batteries or solar, we should go for whatever can give us most bang for our buck in bringing down bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has two and a half minutes.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We have been asking for the warm homes plan for Christmas for the past two years. It is better late than never, but we have mixed feelings in unwrapping it. The Liberal Democrats have long called for an emergency home energy upgrade scheme with free insulation and heat pumps, and we have recently submitted proposals for low-interest loan schemes, so we really welcome this significant investment by the Government in low-carbon heating.
It is folly for anyone to think that we can rely on Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America for the gas to heat our homes, so it is right for the Government to help households make this shift. Every solar panel, heat pump and battery installed will protect families from volatile fossil fuel costs and make homes cheaper to both warm and cool, which is a key point. However, I share the concerns of the energy efficiency sector about the balance that is being struck between insulation and electrification. As the Secretary of State said, we have seen fuel poverty rise and rates of insulation fall over the last five years, and the UK has some of the least energy-efficient housing in Europe, leading to serious health problems and cold, damp, Dickensian home conditions.
Despite our warnings, there is still no clarity in this plan about what will replace the ECO programme, leaving supply chains in limbo and skilled installers going bankrupt. The delay—I will call this out—could leave us without an operational national fuel poverty strategy over the coming winter. We hope that is not the case, and we will therefore hold the Government to account on this and other things that have been mentioned. The gas and electricity price reform has been postponed again, and efficiency standards for landlords have been weakened.
Thank you so much for taking on board the rooftop revolution on the back of the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), but the future homes standard is still missing in action. We cannot afford more failures. We welcome this significant investment, and there is no time to waste.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I welcome the hon. Lady’s thanks, but it is not down to me; it is down to the Secretary of State. We must stop using the word “you”.
Ed Miliband
I am always glad to deliver the Liberal Democrats a late Christmas present. I agree with some of the hon. Lady’s points, particularly on our dependence on fossil fuels and on why clean energy is the way to give us energy security and sovereignty in a dangerous world. I want to reassure her on insulation. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), we continue to see a really important role for insulation, but I hope that she and other Members of the House will agree that what matters when we invest public money is what will do most to tackle the affordability crisis, and that is our test. Insulation is absolutely a key part of that.
On the ECO supply chain, I will expand a little on what I said earlier to my hon. Friend. We recognise, and I know from my own personal conversations, the issues facing organisations in the supply chain. That is why we are going to make sure that the £1.5 billion, which is on top of the £13 billion or so that was previously allocated to the warm homes plan, is spent through the ECO installers to help them make the transition to the new system. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) is getting to work straight away on a group representing the installers and local authorities, which are obviously going to be responsible for the procurement and the spending, because we want to do everything we can to help the supply chain.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am really pleased to see this warm homes plan, as a warm home for everyone was one of my key election pledges. In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, Green Rose CIC has been helping people for years with energy efficiency and making their homes warmer. Can the Secretary of State tell me how local experts such as Green Rose CIC will be used to deliver this change for our constituents?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and I congratulate Green Rose CIC on its work. We see organisations like that as central to this plan, and we are working with local authorities to give local people advice. I do not know whether this applies to Green Rose CIC, but we are also working on our local power plan, which will come out soon. It will provide opportunities for local community energy schemes, because community ownership is a big part of it. I see organisations like that, which really reflect the enthusiasm on the ground, as crucial to this plan.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked whether or not Chinese supply chains—slave labour supply chains—will be allowed in the procurement of any part of the solar panels involved in this scheme, but the Secretary of State did not manage to answer. Can he please confirm that not a single aspect of this project will come off the back of slave labour supply chains?
Ed Miliband
I have to say to the hon. Lady that we inherited from the Conservatives—
Ed Miliband
I will get to the question. We inherited the system from them, and we have raised the standards in the solar road map through the solar stewardship initiative with the solar industry, we have raised the standards through GB Energy, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is working with colleagues across Government to ensure that slave labour is not used in the supply chain.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this warm homes plan? It has been a long time coming—perhaps a little longer than Conservative Members are prepared to admit, given that he and I worked on something very similar before the Tories abandoned the warm homes ambitions that we now see fulfilled. Under the current calculation, one in six households in my constituency lives in fuel poverty, predominantly in places such as Cliftonville and Ramsgate town centre, where incomes are low and buildings are old. Incidentally, such households are predominantly in the private rented sector. Will my right hon. Friend consider revising the fuel poverty calculation to truly reflect how many people struggle to keep their homes warm in winter and cool in summer? As 28% of my residents live in private rented accommodation, will he say a bit more about the information that might be available to support landlords to make this shift? Will he confirm that he will support an energy social tariff to support the transition to a cheaper and cleaner form of energy?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. Working with the private rented sector to raise the standards is incredibly important and, frankly, we cannot let this scandalous situation, which affects so many private tenants, carry on. She makes another important point: upgrading the nation’s housing stock is a big journey. We have been left a long and bad legacy, and we are determined to make a difference.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Orkney and Shetland are home to some of the worst levels of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom, as well as some of the largest onshore wind farms in the country. Solar panels are of limited usefulness to us, because it is coldest in the winter and we might have as little as five hours of daylight in the depths of winter. What would make a difference to us is meaningful support for community benefit from or even for community ownership of some of the installed wind farms that we have in the isles, or an isles tariff for communities such as ours and the Western Isles. When will we hear something from the Secretary of State on those ideas?
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Member for his really important question. We will shortly publish our local power plan, which is precisely about the community ownership he mentions. We see that as having a central role. It plays much more of a role in countries such as Germany and Denmark than it does here. We want to expand it, and we want his constituents to benefit.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It was interesting to hear the Liberal Democrats really struggle to say that they admire this policy, given that they seem to be getting everything they want from it, and it is disappointing to see the deserted Conservative Benches for this statement. [Interruption.] Oh, I offer my apologies to the shadow Minister, who is not with allies.
It is disappointing to hear the Conservatives move from being climate change converts to sustainability sceptics yet again. They left our country vulnerable to the energy price spikes that meant the last Government had to spend at least £78 billion to deal with the cost of living crisis, whereas this Government are investing big. We announced Europe’s biggest ever wind auction last week. Now we are seeing clean power from day one—new builds, new power. Does the Secretary of State agree that a major motive for this plan is to cut hundreds of pounds off bills in Bournemouth East by going solar as standard, and that a rooftop revolution will not only bring down bills, but keep bills down in the long term?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I guess the shadow Minister will be wondering where his hon. Friends have gone, and whether they are going to another political party. Let me say to my hon. Friend that this is absolutely about his constituents and absolutely about cutting bills. We have a long-term affordability crisis, and this is a long-term plan to help tackle it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have confidence that the Secretary of State is across his brief and does not need to be warmed up before a question, so get straight to the question so that we get on to the next Member.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I welcome the additional investment in energy efficiency measures, which is a good thing. I certainly welcome the simplification of the energy efficiency systems that people can bid into, which can only be a good thing for consumers because that has been a veritable maze. However, the biggest barrier for many of my constituents and people across Scotland is price. They cannot invest in their home if they cannot get a decent price for their energy and deal with the cost of living that is affecting them right now, with the bills they are getting on their doorstep right now. The north of Scotland has the highest energy prices in the UK, and the SNP has put forward proposals for a social tariff. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider those measures, and put in place a social tariff to enable people to take advantage of such schemes?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is because we recognise the immediacy of the affordability crisis that we took the action we did in the Budget to take £150 of costs off bills. It is because we recognise the affordability crisis that we significantly increased the numbers eligible for the warm home discount, for which I think hundreds of thousands more people in Scotland are now eligible. I would point out that the Scottish Government have some responsibility here, having cut some of their own schemes, but we want to work with the Scottish Government and do all we can to help his constituents.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has once again pulled quite a rabbit out of the Chancellor’s hat, so I congratulate him on that. He is clearly her favourite Secretary of State.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we know what happens when we do not rely on renewables? The previous Government had to pay £44 billion to subsidise bills, at the same time that our constituents were struggling to pay them. I agree with the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), that we still need to be driving down electricity costs. What does the Secretary of State think are the key things we can do to address the skills shortages in the heat pump installation sector, and how many heat pumps should we expect to be installed by 2030?
Ed Miliband
The target we are setting in this plan for 2030 is 450,000. Our skills taskforce is designed to do what my hon. Friend set out, which is to meet the skills needs—the very significant skills needs—we are going to have.
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I do think that the Chancellor deserves real credit for this plan, because she has recognised the importance of long-term public investment, which the last Government singularly did not. The easy thing in difficult times is to cut public investment, but she did not do that. She has increased it, and she is investing very significantly in this area.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I warmly welcome this plan and the ambition that the Government are showing, and I will try to dispel some of the official Opposition’s misconceptions. I am sure we have all been out knocking on doors in our constituency. When I was doing so in Worcester Park last week, a lady came to the door in a big jacket, and I moved to let her pass, because I thought she was on her way out. However, she was not going out; she was in her home in a jacket because she did not have the heating on. I am sure we have all experienced that.
We know how the cost of living crisis is hitting our residents, whether through their grocery bills, their rent or their energy costs. Can the Secretary of State give a bit more detail on how we will address energy costs and insulation issues in the short term? Are there programmes in the plan that can fund easy wins, so that we get fewer energy leaks from existing gas boilers, while the industry spools up by getting those with the right skills to install heat pumps, and while we are getting production lines ready?
Ed Miliband
What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question will resonate with every Member of this House, because so many people are facing a chronic and acute cost of living crisis. This has been going on for a very long time, which is what makes it really hard for people.
The hon. Gentleman asked what difference we can make in the short term. That is why the £150 is important: because it is immediate relief. It is also why the warm home discount and its expansion is important. I encourage people watching this—and I ask Members to encourage their constituents—to go to the gov.uk website to see what schemes are available. People can also get that information from their local authority. There is money available, and we want to get as much help to people as possible, as quickly as possible. This money is sometimes underspent by local authorities, but we want them to get this money out to help people.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I wonder where the Tory MPs are. They cannot all be having cosy chats with Robert Jenrick—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not reference Members by their names, but by their constituencies. Get straight to the question!
Peter Swallow
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do apologise.
I welcome the warm homes plan for the support that it will give, not only to the constituents most in need in Bracknell Forest, but to everyone who is making important upgrades to their home, including through low and no-interest loans for solar panel upgrades. What thought has my right hon. Friend given to supporting leaseholders in making these changes, and to ensuring that they are not held back by freeholders turning down common-sense requests?
Ed Miliband
We absolutely see leaseholders as being eligible for this help, and it is very important that they are. My hon. Friend, with his constituency experience, speaks compellingly about this issue. We want as many people as possible to be helped as quickly as possible through this plan.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Despite the fact that the plan will not apply to Northern Ireland, I welcome the aspect that applies to rented accommodation. Could the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that, even with this plan, there will still be an up-front cost, so low-income families will have to borrow, which will be an impediment? Does he also recognise that despite what he has done on electricity prices, running costs will still be higher, because that is offset by the cost of his net zero policies, which cause electricity to be dearer than gas?
Ed Miliband
I thought that for the first time in 20 years, we were going to agree completely, and we nearly got there. However, three-quarters agreement is better than we have done in 20 years. On the first part of what the right hon. Member said, Barnett consequentials have already been allocated for this. It is obviously for the Executive in Northern Ireland to make their own decisions about how they spend the money. We want the warm homes agency to work with the devolved Governments as well. We also want to look at how a zero or low-interest loan scheme could work across the United Kingdom. We want to work as much as possible with the devolved Governments to help people across the UK.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I particularly welcome the new requirements placed on private landlords, which will be a huge boost to tenants in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency. My question concerns rural communities, which often face high energy costs and other practical barriers, such as the limited availability of those who install things like heat pumps. Can he set out in a bit more detail how his Department will work with relevant local authorities and suppliers to ensure that rural communities, such as those in north Buckinghamshire, are not left behind?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and I want to tell him a nerdy fact. I like nerdy facts; it is in character. Nearly half the people on the boiler upgrade scheme are in rural areas, and I think am I right in saying that a third are off the gas grid. That tells you something about the appetite, particularly in rural communities and among those who are off the gas grid, to find alternatives. Hopefully, the continuation and expansion of such schemes will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the publication of the long-awaited warm homes plan. The Green party has tirelessly campaigned for many of the things in it: a more consistent, clearer, straightforward, nationwide system for people to access support; better inspection and accountability of installers; and of course solar panels on roofs as default. However, I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, this is supposed to be a warm homes plan, but there is a lot of focus on energy supply improvements, and less than I would expect on energy demand management and insulation, which is crucial to reducing bills. Why is that? Secondly, the scale of this plan is still nowhere close to matching the scale of the need. According to the Government’s statistics, there are 2.7 million households in fuel poverty; it is 6 million households, according to other statistics. This plan aims to address only 1 million of those households, and it represents a 25% cut to the amount previously promised for this work. Why is that, and what will the Government do to reach the millions of additional households that will not be covered?
Ed Miliband
I half thank the hon. Lady for her questions. On the second question, by anyone’s reckoning, this is a very substantial investment. It is multiple times more than was invested in the last Parliament, and there needs to be recognition of that. I recognise that there is further to go. This will help 5 million homes; there are a lot more homes that we want to help, but this is, by any measure, making a difference. On her first point, I reassure the hon. Lady that we absolutely see the value of making fabric and insulation part of this agenda, but the focus has to be on what works to cut bills. That is what our constituents want us to focus on.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome the warm homes plan, which will benefit families in Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and especially the measures targeted at helping low-income families out of fuel poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that, after a decade of failure from the Conservative party, the Labour Government recognise the cost of living crisis, and are taking definitive action, through this record public investment in home upgrades, to help reduce bills for good?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well. We are turning the page on a decade of failure. It is really important that the public know that we get the scale of the crisis that they are facing—the long-term crisis that this Government were determined to deal with when we came into office. We are not over-claiming for this plan, but it will make a difference. We are about making a difference to the costs that people face, so that we can help tackle the cost of living crisis.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As the Secretary of State has pointed out, in rural areas, we tend to have older housing stock and lots of people off-grid. They are very keen to see upgrades made to their home, and we welcome this announcement. In my constituency, a number of people engaged with the energy company obligation 4 scheme. Unfortunately, they have been let down badly by rogue installers, who have left their bills higher and their homes damaged, and who have taken money from the taxpayer. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that does not happen this time, and what remedy might be available for those who have been let down by rogue actors in ECO4?
Ed Miliband
Any cases should be brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). I feel a deep sense of sympathy for the people who have been badly affected by ECO4 and its problems. It was brought to our attention when we came into office, and we are determined to have remediation for all the people affected. The fundamental principle must be that those who, through no fault of their own, were badly let down by the system deserve to have that made good.
On the hon. Lady’s point about how we stop the same thing happening in the future, I would say a couple of things. First, our experience is that local authority schemes had many fewer problems and much higher standards of safeguards. Secondly, the point of the warm homes agency is to have a proper system of regulation that Government oversee. That is the fundamental principle here. We had a piecemeal, privatised, fragmented system, and that is partly what led to the problems. We cannot allow that to continue.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome this announcement from the Secretary of State, and his work over many years in this important policy area. This is an enormous issue in my constituency, where there are many older houses, and many people struggling to pay their bills, so I wholeheartedly welcome the plan. Might he say a little bit about the important work that many local authorities are doing? In my area, Labour-run Reading borough council has invested heavily in new council houses, and it will shortly open 300 new council houses, built to a very high standard. Those houses will ensure that people live in warm homes and have secure family finances and lower heating bills.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I was with all the mayors on Monday, talking to them about their role in the warm homes plan. Local authorities and regional mayors have the best sense about what their area needs, and they are the people to help co-ordinate this and make it happen. Lots of people have rightly said that we need to do more—that this is good, but could we go further? This will be a 15 or 20-year project for the country. That is the way to think about it. This is a national mission to transform our housing stock. It is long overdue. We are making a really important start, and there is further to go.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
There is much to welcome in the warm homes plan. Wales has the oldest housing stock in Europe, with around a third of houses built before 1919. Because of that, Wales is rightly a net beneficiary of ECO schemes; it accounts for 6% of all ECO measures and 12% of ECO4. The Secretary of State will recognise that that is higher than the Barnett consequential funding, based on population share. Can he explain how the warm homes funding for Wales will be sufficient to meet the extreme challenges facing Welsh homeowners?
Ed Miliband
This scheme is really important for Wales. It will have a great impact, even if we take just the boiler upgrade scheme. We are determined to work with the Welsh Government to make sure that the scheme makes a difference for people in Wales. That is the work that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome this £15 billion investment, which will tackle energy security issues and make sure that family finances are protected from fossil fuel price spikes. In my constituency, there is a fantastic organisation, co-founded by a lady named Jane, called Women in Retrofit, which focuses on getting more women and girls into the retrofit industry. We simply will not be able to meet our targets without using that part of the workforce. What has the Secretary of State considered, when it comes to getting more women and girls into this work?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate Jane and Women in Retrofit. They sound like ideal people for the taskforce led by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to talk to. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) makes such a powerful point about the diversity of opportunities here, and we want as many people as possible to take advantage of them.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As co-chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group, I welcome the expansion of the funding for solar and heat pumps. Prior to coming to this place, I spent the better part of a decade riding the solarcoaster, so I know for a fact that the biggest drag on solar expansion is the skills shortage. Would the Secretary of State fill us in on what the Government and other Departments plan to do to ensure that the skills are there for installations to go ahead?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. The solar road map set out some of the work that we are doing, but the whole point of the taskforce—this is a much more intentional way of thinking about the workforce challenges than the previous Government’s way—is to make sure that we have the workforce in place. There were more than 200,000 installations last year; that shows the demand for rooftop solar. Some of the eco organisations that are struggling with the transition could be part of this. We want to make sure that happens.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I am really pleased to see this plan. It is such a welcome change from the lukewarm gusts of air that came from the Opposition when they were in government. It is practical, pragmatic and deliverable. Lots of people in my constituency will welcome how fair it is, particularly for people on lower incomes, but also for those on middle incomes, houseowners and renters—everyone. The worry for people in my constituency is that we have a local authority in Kent county council that is committed to climate denialism. It is obsessed with it. How can people in my constituency get the advantages for their houses, jobs and employment, including the tradespeople who really want to be part of this?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I would say to the council that he talks about, “Leave your dogma at the door and help local people. Work with us to help local people.”
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Labour-run Kirklees council failed to apply for the first round of Government warm homes local grants last year. In a cost of living crisis, that is an unforgiveable abdication of duty and a total failure by Labour councillors, resulting in a loss of between £1.5 million and £7 million that was secured by neighbouring authorities. I welcome the Government’s warm homes plan, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the cost of the plan will not be added to monthly household bills? Under the previous Government, my constituents were left with incomplete, dangerous and ineffective installations that they had to pay thousands to remove. Will he ensure that they will not be faced with the same issue?
Ed Miliband
First, that sounds like negative propaganda against Kirklees council, which I am sceptical about. Secondly, on the wider issue, the whole point of the plan is that we are doing it through public investment. That is the decision the Chancellor took and I think it is the right decision.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome today’s announcement. Stoke-on-Trent is routinely ranked at No. 1 in the country for fuel poverty. We have old, terraced housing, often with single glazing and small yards, so space for heat pumps and so on is a concern, but I am sure we will work that out. We are very fortunate that Fiona Miller and the Beat the Cold team, who recently met the Minister for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), do a lot of work on the ground. The Secretary of State says that the plan will be run through local authorities. How can good partnerships in localities already doing the work be involved in the programme?
My right hon. Friend also says that he is aware of the challenges that suppliers of the ECO scheme face, having lost contracts. In my constituency, that is lots of jobs that have now been lost. How soon will the information be available to them, so they can start workforce planning for the delivery of the programme and get people back into work delivering the upgrades we need?
Ed Miliband
On my hon. Friend’s first point, we want to use local partnerships that are already in place. On ECO installers, that is the work that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will be cracking on with. We did not want just to say that we will allocate the money and that it needs to go through the ECO installers. We want to make sure that happens and we will work urgently on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions need to be much shorter, as do the answers from the Secretary of State.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome much of it, including the fact that it recognises the challenge facing suppliers and that it will support 80,000 jobs. Will the Government commit to working with small local businesses to deliver the scheme, which will help the local economy, or will it just be for the big boys?
Ed Miliband
Small and medium-sized enterprises will be crucial to the scheme.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The cost of living is the No. 1 issue for my constituents, so I welcome this record investment in warmer homes and lower bills. Measures such as zero-interest and low-interest loans for solar batteries and heat pumps, greater protections for renters, and solar on new homes will all make a huge amount of difference. When will my constituents be able to begin applying for those low and zero-interest loans? For many, there is no time to wait.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working urgently with the banks and others—indeed, I think a roundtable is being convened next week—to work out how quickly we can get on with this process. We want to do this as soon as possible. It will take time, and if there is one lesson from the past it is that we need to get this right. We do not want a green deal and all of that malarkey happening. We want to get it right, but we want to do it as quickly as we can.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I particularly welcome the investment in low-cost loans for solar panels, which will really boost jobs. However, the grid is not currently resilient enough to cope when our electric vehicle cars are providing microgeneration and, as the rays become more efficient, hit the target for distribution network operator approval. What assurances will the warm homes plan provide on investment in the grid and the capacity of DNOs, so that the revolution is successful and not a failed bright idea?
Ed Miliband
We are making big investment in the transmission infrastructure and I urge all hon. Members locally to support, not oppose, that. We are also doing a big reordering of the grid queue, which is crucial because we then get the projects in the places where we need them.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome this significant investment. My constituents were badly let down by the previous faulty cavity wall insulation scheme. They were then chased for adverse legal costs. Ensuring confidence in future schemes will be really important. How are we supporting the really good suppliers under the ECO scheme and how quickly will the transition be in place to support them?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the fragility of consumer confidence. We have to support it. The point of the oversight group that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will chair is to make sure that we do as much as we can to support good ECO suppliers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I warmly welcome the new minimum energy efficiency standards for privately rented homes in the long-awaited warm homes plan, but will the Secretary of State lay out how he will ensure that landlords do not simply pass on to renters the costs of meeting those standards? Will he perhaps ask his colleague the Housing Secretary to introduce rent controls to ensure that renters can actually afford to rent these new warm homes?
Ed Miliband
I am not going to do that, but what I will say to the hon. Lady is that lots of landlords already meet the standards. Secondly, we want to provide some help for landlords to make that happen. This is an important point. Some of the schemes we have been talking about will be available to landlords. Through a combination of some landlords already meeting the standards and that help, we are confident that costs will be reduced and it will not lead to higher rents.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that it is not just about having the right policy, which I am sure this is; it is also about the right implementation. My constituents Mr and Mrs Henley-Smith had a heat pump installed under a previous Government scheme. The heat pump was so badly installed by Greener Living that the installer had to offer a back-up gas boiler to get their home hot enough. Greener Living went bust. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that under his schemes any installations will be by competent companies, and that if the installation goes wrong the Government will stand behind people and ensure rectification work is done to a proper standard?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely, yes. I am so sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituents. We must ensure that we do not let that kind of thing happen.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, there are hundreds of residential park homes occupied by elderly residents. They are very energy-inefficient homes and very complex to retrofit. Previous home upgrade grants were ineffective and bureaucratic, because of the batching application process to retrofit homes, so they did not reach many park homes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the warm homes plan will effectively deliver for park home residents?
Ed Miliband
As an MP with park homes in my constituency, I am very sympathetic to the issues facing people who live in park homes. To give the hon. Lady a proper answer, I will take that away and pass it on to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome the plan and the investment that is coming with it, and I strongly commend the leadership of the Secretary of State in this area. It is great news that small businesses are the vehicle that will drive home the upgrades in our local communities, but they too have struggled. I have over 5,000 small businesses in Sheffield Central. Will he outline how those small businesses will benefit from this plan?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. Small businesses are eligible for the boiler upgrade scheme and there is a substantial investment in that. We want them to benefit from the solar loans, too. We also want to help them through local authority procurement. She is right that this is a massive job creation opportunity, but we need the SME sector to get its fair share.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on a deliverable warm homes plan. On Friday, I am hosting a utility cost of living event with energy and water suppliers and banks, because Portsmouth North residents were let down dramatically by the previous Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that home upgrades are one of the most effective ways to bring down energy bills, particularly for families? In Portsmouth North, we have 5,000 households officially living in fuel poverty, and more struggling with energy costs because prefabs and Victorian and other older buildings are less efficient to heat.
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on convening people locally on the crucial issue of the cost of living crisis. I am sure that that will be a really effective and important event. She is absolutely right that home upgrades for her constituents in Portsmouth North and elsewhere are absolutely the long-term answer to the cost of living crisis.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I especially welcome the fact that the plan will now ensure a degree of localisation and devolution when it comes to decision making, and hopefully it will get rid of the problems we saw with the previous Government’s scheme. Thousands of residents in my constituency have fallen victim to substandard work. The Secretary of State mentioned that there will be remediation. Will that remediation allow them to apply for the new scheme?
Ed Miliband
I think that remediation of the previous works should happen whatever, and residents should not be required to apply. There should be a process with TrustMark, which I think is the overseer in the case that the hon. Member is talking about. This is an issue that my Department is very focused on. It would have been much better if the mess had not been created in the first place, but we are determined to clean it up. If he knows of areas where it has not been cleaned up, he should draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for energy consumers.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Some 15% of my constituents live in fuel poverty, and many more go without in order to pay the outrageous energy bills they face. Many vulnerable people, children and elderly people are living in properties that are too cold and too damp. That is not acceptable to me, and I know that it is not acceptable to the Secretary of State. How will we ensure that the welcome measures in this plan reach the most vulnerable people in communities in Hartlepool and beyond?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently, and I am sure that what he said will resonate with Members across the House when they think of constituents who are poor and vulnerable and face a choice between heating and eating. The key priority is to get the money out to local and combined authorities. They are the best people to deliver the plan. Looking back over previous years, it is the experience of those authorities that means they are the best way to get help to people most urgently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It really is good news, and we all welcome the warm homes plan and help for families. However, I have some concerns. I know that the Barnett consequential for the devolved nations has been confirmed, and that is good news, but the Executive will be the administrative body for the plan in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State outline how they will ensure access to and deliver the scheme, and—I ask this gently—how will the so-called squeezed middle-income families obtain help for insulation? Those squeezed middle-income families are highly taxed due to fiscal drag and struggle to heat their homes and pay their mortgage.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. The Minister for energy consumers met the Minister for Communities yesterday to talk about how we can work together—for example on the Warm Homes Agency, which is UK-wide, and hopefully on the solar loans as well. We want to do everything we can to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to help serve the people of Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome the publication of this £15 billion warm homes plan, which will get people’s bills down and reduce our impact on the environment. I was particularly interested to hear of the £90 million that has been set aside for the development of heat pumps, because Vaillant—one of the world’s leading manufacturers of heat pumps—is based in Belper in my constituency. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the £90 million will be spent well? Will he engage with Vaillant to make sure that we can draw on its experience, and can we use that money to create more good jobs in this very important sector in Derbyshire?
Ed Miliband
We love Vaillant and what it does. The Minister for climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), loves it so much that she is going to visit tomorrow. It is part of the £90 million heat pump investment accelerator programme. This plan is about working with companies such as Vaillant so that we can get domestic manufacturing in this country, which I am sure is what Members across the House would like to see.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. I had a visit from Citizens Advice Harlow yesterday, and it told me what we probably already know: the No. 1 issue facing residents in Harlow is damp, mould and fuel poverty. The homes in Harlow were not built in 1919, because Harlow did not exist in 1919, but new towns have a unique problem in that they were all built at the same time, sometimes quickly after the war, so they are suffering from these problems at the same time. Will the Secretary of State take the new towns challenge into consideration, and can he detail how this plan will make a huge difference for residents in my constituency?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks about a really important issue, which I am aware of from my experiences of visiting such areas. The Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), has heard his statement, and we do need to think about this, because there are areas such as Harlow and elsewhere that have particular challenges.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There are 44,000 homes in York that are energy-insecure, so we really welcome today’s announcement. However, scaling the skills is really important. How is the Secretary of State working with the Education Secretary to ensure that further education has the resources it needs to scale the workforce for the future?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with typical eloquence on this issue, which came up at the mayors meeting on Monday, when we discussed how we will ensure that the FE sector in particular is geared up to train people for these opportunities. We will work on this with Skills England and mayors, and Ministers will be taking it forward.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will recall a visit to Derby where he officially opened Vaillant’s heat source cylinder facility. Will he outline what today’s announcement will mean for such facilities and how it will create more clean energy jobs in Derby and across the UK?
Ed Miliband
I very much enjoyed the visit to Vaillant and was incredibly impressed by what it is doing. Programmes such as the heat pump investment accelerator are designed to help companies such as Vaillant capitalise on this growing market.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the warm homes plan, which will lower constituents’ heating bills and provide for the biggest home upgrade in British history. How will the Secretary of State ensure that clean energy is the right choice not only for clean emissions but for cutting bills, while avoiding past Conservative failures on insulation that left tens of thousands of homes with severe damp, mould and structural damage?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with very good sense on this issue. This plan is a huge opportunity for people. We are seeing record demand, and the question for this House and for all of us is whether we want that to be just for the wealthiest or for everyone. The point of the public investment is to bring opportunities within the reach of ordinary families. That is what is at the heart of this plan.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his commitment to improve energy efficiency in people’s homes and reduce bills for constituents like mine. As the chair of the future homes, skills and innovations all-party parliamentary group, I would welcome more details on the taskforce identified in the plan, to ensure that we have the skills and innovation to meet the ambition, so that my constituents can benefit from warmer homes as well as the good jobs that the sector can provide.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well. I am sure that the Minister for Energy Consumers will be happy to talk to her about how we can make sure that the taskforce does what she thinks is necessary to get the workforce we need.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State on behalf of the over 5,000 households in my constituency that experience fuel poverty. Constituents have also benefited from Saltaire Retrofit Reimagined, a community initiative focused on improving energy efficiency within the Saltaire world heritage site. Will the Secretary of State assure residents of listed properties, such as those in Saltaire, that they too can benefit from the upgrades?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on this issue. We want the benefits to be spread as widely as possible. The Minister for Energy Consumers tells me that he will shortly visit that project with my hon. Friend.
As this is the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say one final thing. I want to thank the civil service team that have worked on this plan. They have worked on it tirelessly over many months, so I really want to put on record my thanks and the thanks of other Members. We look forward to engaging with Members across the House on implementing the plan.
Water White Paper
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the Government’s water White Paper, “A New Vision for Water”. The paper sets out once-in-a-generation reforms, putting consumers and the environment first and building a water system fit for the future.
For too long, the last Conservative Government turned a blind eye—perhaps that is why there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber to discuss this issue. They neglected the needs of people and the environment. The result: a whole-system failure, companies profiting at customers’ expense, vital infrastructure left to crumble, record levels of pollution in our waterways and public trust destroyed. It is no wonder that none of them—we may have one of two—has turned up to sit on the Back Benches.
This Government inherited that terrible failure, and we are not shying away from it. Every family in this country deserves clean water from their taps, seas safe for their children to swim in, and bills that are fair and affordable. This Government is turning the page on that Tory failure. Our goal is simple: a water system that delivers safe and secure water supplies, better water quality and a fair deal for customers and investors.
Within weeks of coming into office, this Government asked Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead an independent water commission. Sir Jon met over 150 stakeholders, including environmental groups, investors, Members of both Houses, and local communities. His call for evidence received more than 50,000 responses—there is much more interest from people out there than from the Conservative party. I thank Sir Jon and all those who contributed, including right hon. and hon. Members. The White Paper sets out our response to his recommendations.
The Cunliffe review was vital, but we did not wait for its conclusions to act. In our first year in office, we laid the foundations for the transformation that this White Paper sets out. We passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give the regulator the power to ban bonuses for polluting water bosses and issue automatic fines for pollution; we ringfenced the money from consumers’ bills, so that it can be spent only on fixing and upgrading infrastructure and improving water quality, not diverted to pay bonuses or dividends; we secured an historic £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild the water network; and we established the brand-new water delivery taskforce to get spades in the ground, fast-track the delivery of new infrastructure projects and drive economic growth.
This White Paper builds on those strong foundations and sets out a new vision for water in this country. Our reforms deliver three fundamental shifts. The first is the shift from fragmentation to co-ordination. Today, responsibility for water is scattered across four different regulators. The result is confusion, duplication and regulatory gaps. We will change that. We will abolish Ofwat and create a new and more powerful regulator, integrating economic and environmental regulation. We will hold water companies to account by moving away from a system of self-monitoring, in which water companies have been marking their own homework, to a more proactive and preventive approach.
There will be nowhere to hide for poorly performing water companies. We will introduce an MOT approach for water company infrastructure, requiring maintenance checks on pipes, pumps and water treatment works; we will introduce a chief engineer and ensure that there is engineering capability in the new regulator, so that decisions are grounded in practical understanding; we will take a new supervisory approach, holding companies to account in detail and recognising the different challenges they face; and our new performance improvement regime will give the regulator the power to step in faster and put things right earlier. That is prevention-first regulation.
However, regulation alone will not clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We need everyone with a stake in our waterways to be pulling in the same direction. New reforms for regional planning will bring councils, water companies, farmers and developers together to tackle local pollution, manage water resources and support housing growth. That will strengthen community voices in the water system and drive greater use of nature-based solutions.
The second shift is from corporate interest to public interest. We must never lose sight of who this reform is for: customers and the environment. We will introduce an independent water ombudsman to resolve consumer disputes fairly. We will keep bills affordable through the wider roll-out of smart meters to help those who need it most. There will be a new water efficiency label on every appliance, so that when customers buy a washing machine or a shower, they will know exactly what it will cost not just to buy it, but to run it—to help bring their bills down. We are also cracking down on pollution at its source. We will tighten agricultural standards, including on sludge spreading. We will double funding for catchment partnerships, harnessing the power of nature to protect our rivers.
The third shift is from short-term thinking to long-term planning. For too long, the water sector has lurched from one five-year price review to the next, with no clear picture of where we are headed. We will publish a transition plan to provide a clear, simple road map for water companies, investors and the regulators. The plan will set out how the next price review will deliver those reforms, how we drive better co-ordination between existing regulators during the transition, and how we will make leadership appointments at the earliest opportunity to the new regulator’s board, including a chair-designate.
For too long the previous Conservative Government turned a blind eye to water system failure. Infrastructure was neglected, pollution went unchecked and public trust was betrayed. This White Paper draws a line under that era. It lays the groundwork for our upcoming water Bill and puts us on a new path; a path where water companies act responsibly, where customers get the service they deserve, where investors can invest with confidence, and where we can all enjoy clean rivers, lakes and seas. The British public voted for change, and we are delivering that change by building a system fit for the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement. Indeed, I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. It is not often that she puts in an appearance, from the publication of the Minette Batters report to the animal welfare strategy, which was published two days before Christmas eve, to the family farm tax fiasco, the Secretary of State has been noticeable by her absence. Indeed, she intervened on the South East Water crisis only seven days ago, months after Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead and other areas began suffering from the crisis.
The Secretary of State talks about this statement. Why does she have so little pride in her own water White Paper? She announced it to the press on Monday, and we were waiting and ready for a statement—there was no statement. The Government were, however, able to cancel their business on the public accountability legislation—that is ironic. We were waiting for a statement yesterday—there was no statement—and today she has finally given a statement on the White Paper because there was an urgent question. When it comes to scrutiny and accountability, I think the Secretary of State should be a little bit careful before she criticises others over their presence in the Chamber.
That being said, we do cautiously welcome elements of these proposals. Indeed, many of the Government’s measures on water match our plans from before the 2024 election. When we entered Government in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored by the previous Labour Government. Now that figure stands at 100%. The Water (Special Measures) Act last year repackaged Conservative regulatory proposals, such as banning unfair bonuses for water bosses, and we welcome that. The so-called private investment that the Secretary of State keeps referring to is in fact paid for by bill payers, so let us not pretend otherwise. This investment, although it is needed, is being paid for by all of our constituents through their bills.
Talking about delay, in June and July last year Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team published their review of the water sector. That report contained 88 recommendations. How many of those 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper? Given that the Secretary of State for Energy has just announced that £15 billion worth of taxpayers’ money is to be spent on heat pumps and solar bills—to put that in context, it is equivalent to most of the police funding for England and Wales—can the Secretary of State tell us how much taxpayer and bill payer money has been allocated to this White Paper and over what timeframe these taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in the White Paper?
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will extend environmental permit regimes to cattle farmers? If so, how does she intend to ensure that the beef sector—which has already been hit by higher taxes under this Government, by the abrupt halt of farm funding, which has not been replaced, and by the family farm tax fiasco—is not sunk by thousands of pounds in extra costs each year? How will the Secretary of State make sure that infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security?
Given Ministers’ habits of missing their own deadlines, will the Secretary of State give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? How long will the transition take? People expect change in the water sector and are beginning to tire of the sloth-like way in which this Government conduct themselves. The Opposition fully support efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account, building on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality and deliver meaningful reform of the sector. We just need the Government to get on with it.
Emma Reynolds
Oh my gosh! Well, I say to the right hon. Lady that I will not take any lectures from the Conservative party. Not only can they not be bothered to turn up for the statement, which shows an absolute disregard for the concerns of the public about the levels of pollution in our waterways—[Interruption.] I will answer her questions. We have done more in 18 months than the Conservatives did in 14 years, so I will not take any lectures from her. I am proud of our water White Paper and that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), commissioned somebody of the stature of Sir Jon Cunliffe and appointed the Independent Water Commission to do the most fundamental review of our water system since privatisation—a privatisation that happened under their Thatcher Government.
The shadow Secretary of State asked how many recommendations we are taking forward. It is the vast majority and more, because we are also looking at agricultural pollution, which we did not ask Sir Jon to look at. The water White Paper talks about tackling that kind of pollution and I will not shy away from that. We are working in partnership with farmers, the National Farmers Union and others because that it is an important source of water pollution.
Again, I will not take lectures from the right hon. Lady about the environmental land management programme when the Conservatives underspent the farming budget. They could not even be bothered to get the money out of the door. She asked about infrastructure upgrades. The White Paper introduces a system that moves away from water companies marking their own homework to a regulator with teeth that gets a grip on the delivery of the £104 billion infrastructure investment. Under the Conservative Government, the pipes and pumps were left in a shocking state of disrepair because there was not the regulation nor the strong regulator that we need. That is what this water White Paper and the upcoming water Bill will deliver.
The right hon. Lady talks about improving water supply. It is absolutely correct—maybe we can agree on something—that we have seen very poor performance from South East Water in recent weeks, and I was in the area last week to meet constituents of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin)—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady asked whether I should have gone earlier. Did she bother to go? [Interruption.] Listen, this is a privatised industry because of decisions made in 1989. I called on the regulator Ofwat to examine the licence conditions and whether they had been breached by South East Water. I do not remember her saying any such thing. I have also hauled in the chair of South East Water to ask for an urgent investigation into what happened last week and the week before, as well as for two weeks before Christmas.
This water White Paper is the most ambitious reform in a generation to our water system. It is severely needed because of the blind eye that the Conservatives turned when they were in government and the record levels of pollution in our waterways.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper because customers right across the country have been failed by their water company, and all too often, when turning to Ofwat for support and to hold executives to account, they have been met with bureaucracy and a weak response. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the creation of a new combined, powerful water ombudsman, set out in the White Paper, will finally give customers a route to resolve complaints quickly when companies fail to deliver this most basic of public services?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the main focus of our reforms is to create a single, more powerful and integrated regulator. At the moment, as I said in my statement, we have duplication as well as gaps. We have consumers who are not being served well, so we need a regulator that gets a grip on the investment in maintaining our water infrastructure and on bearing down on pollution incidents. We have already made a start on that, but the new regulator will have more teeth and more power to do that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need that single, more powerful and integrated regulator to ensure we deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Although some proposals in this White Paper are welcome, it does not go far enough to guarantee the promised fundamental reforms. Record sewage spills of over 45,000 hours were recorded in Glastonbury and Somerton last year. The public are left in the dark as the Government refuse to record the true scale of the volume of sewage dumped, rather than just the duration. Fat cat-retention payments continue as water companies evade the 2025 ban on bonuses, with the former Wessex Water chief executive officer landing a £170,000 bonus through the parent company YTL, with Ofwat apparently powerless to oppose it. Why do the Government refuse to address the failed ownership model that has allowed pollution, under-investment and profiteering to persist for decades? Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for, I think, some support for the White Paper and what she has said. We both share real concerns about the status quo. On mutual ownership, I do not really hear a plan from the Liberal Democrats as to how to get to that point—[Interruption.] Hear me out. If it involves wholesale nationalisation, given that these are private companies, that would cost around £100 billion, would be legally complex and take years of wrangling through the courts. My focus is on improving the status quo and ensuring that we are tackling pollution, which she rightly says is still happening. Since January of last year, 100% of storm overflows are being monitored, so we are shining a light of some of the pollution. We still have a way to go, but we are bearing down on the pollution that she rightly talks about.
My solution to this crisis and this issue is to make sure that we have a complete overhaul of regulation, the regulators and the way that consumers are not, at the moment, put at the centre of things. That way, we protect the consumer in a much more meaningful way by introducing a water ombudsman with statutory powers. We are making some progress and we will make more. I know that she and I agree on some things, although we may disagree on some of the details. We are determined to deliver a system that provides better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Those of us in this House who sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and grilled the water bosses know all too well how broken this industry is, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing the failures of the industry with these important reforms. As the Secretary of State knows, in Hastings and Rye, we have faced major water outages. In May 2024, the main pipe supplying Hastings burst, leaving 30,000 homes without water for days. It also burst this Christmas, leaving people without water on Christmas day.
We have since found out that Southern Water received planning permission in 2007 to replace the pipe but sat on its hands instead. This month, it begins the work to replace the pipe because of the pressure that I and this Government have put on the water industry. The measure of introducing MOTs on broken water infrastructure will also be critical for preventing that kind of thing from happening.
One of the things that I campaigned on is having clear guidance in the event of an outage and on the conditions that water companies must comply with—not just bottled water, but hygiene facilities and portaloos. Indeed, the Committee has also recommended that. Will the Secretary of State look at that request so we can be better prepared if outages occur?
Emma Reynolds
I commend my hon. Friend’s leadership on this issue. I know that she was putting pressure on Southern Water on Christmas eve. She was concerned about the previous outages, but also about those that were likely to occur. She is absolutely right to say that we need more emphasis on ensuring that companies such as Southern Water are investing in the infrastructure that is needed to prevent these outages in the first place. We are moving from a system of “fix on failure” to one of prevention. That is what this White Paper is all about.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome what is in the White Paper, and it should lead to more effective regulation, but I have just a couple of words of caution. First, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is the only part of the set-up that works well, so folding it into a new regulator should not involve it losing that ability. On agricultural pollution, can the Secretary of State work with the farmers to ensure that this does not just become another stick with which to beat them? She has referred to a whole-system failure, and she is right about that. She will have seen from her recent welcome engagement with South East Water, however, that what we have there is corporate failure, not just of management but of non-executive directors and shareholders. As the Select Committee said, this is an industry that has a real problem with its culture, and what we have in the White Paper, welcome as it is, is not going to shift that. When will we hear from the Government about what they are going to do to change the culture in the industry?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the EFRA Committee Chair for his thoughtful reflections. I agree with him on the Drinking Water Inspectorate—it does a magnificent job—and we will ensure that we transfer its strengths into the new single water regulator, as he suggests. I also agree with him that we will work, and we are working, in partnership with farmers to make sure we get this right. We are looking at what we can do with the ELM schemes to ensure that we give them the support they need to tackle the pollution of our waterways from agriculture. He talks about culture. He has a point, but I would say that the leadership of some of these companies is very varied, and we see good leadership in some of the companies. For example, I have visited Severn Trent, and it has a terrific apprenticeship programme. We need to ensure that we see better performance in the water industry across the board, sharing that best practice from those companies that are actually doing the right thing.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last night, a 30-inch water main burst at Holland Park roundabout on the boundary of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). Homes and cars were flooded to a depth of 3 feet, and since the water was diverted away from the burst, thousands of residents across west London have had little or no fresh water, schools are closed and traffic is in chaos. This and hundreds of smaller bursts in the recent cold weather are the legacy of Thames Water’s failure over not years but decades. Can I thank the Minister for her statement? For my constituents, effective inspection and regulation cannot come soon enough.
Emma Reynolds
I am being kept regularly updated on the issue in Holland Park that my hon. Friend has raised. I understand that 2,000 households are off supply. That is unacceptable, and the regulator, DEFRA and I are working closely with the water company to ensure that we get on top of the issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Not only are the likes of South East Water and Southern Water failing Eastbourne, with yet another outage last week, but shipping companies are also damaging our water quality. Thousands of bags of oven chips have washed up on Eastbourne beach, and their decomposition will have a serious impact on marine wildlife and the local ecosystem. I know that Sussex MPs along the shore have experienced a similar thing, whether with onions, bananas or body lotion from the White Company. However, shipping companies are not mentioned at all in the White Paper. Will the Minister meet me and Sussex MPs with constituencies on the coastline to address this issue, to ensure that the shipping companies pay their fair share towards cleaning up our seas?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Much shorter questions, please.
Emma Reynolds
Either myself or the Water Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Member. I heard about the incident of the chips on the beach. In the White Paper we are looking more broadly at other sources of pollution, including those from transport and agriculture, but we would be happy to have a meeting with him to discuss the issue.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
After 18 months and an independent inquiry, the Government’s answer is more regulation, not enforcing the law as it is. Not one water company has lost its licence, yet we think that more bureaucracy and more regulation will make a difference. More bureaucracy will not fix our water. I am afraid the Secretary of State needs to know that the problem is ownership. Private monopolies with guaranteed incomes have asset-stripped, polluted rivers and paid themselves billions. Until that changes, nothing will change. Will the Secretary of State meet me and other water campaigners to discuss this document? We cannot see any public consultation in the White Paper, so will she at least commit to that, please?
Emma Reynolds
I am always happy to meet with hon. Friends, as my hon. Friend well knows, but Sir Jon met many stakeholders and members of the public and we had 50,000 responses to the Independent Water Commission. It is right that the Government now get on with things, set the direction and lay the foundations for the water White Paper. I disagree with him on introducing more regulation. We need a regulator with more teeth and more powers to enforce the law as it stands, and that is what we are getting on with.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome many of the measures in this White Paper. More regulation will help, but—let’s be honest—it does not get to the heart of the problem: the failure of the privatisation of the water industry. We need to be talking about ownership, but that is absent from the White Paper. I have heard the conversations in the Chamber today about nationalisation, and I agree with the Secretary of State. There would be some drawbacks to a model of nationalisation. It would put substantial liabilities on the book and would put sewerage infrastructure investment up against investment in schools and hospitals in every Budget. But there is another model, which the Liberal Democrats are putting forward: the co-operative or mutualisation model. Will the Secretary of State take that into serious consideration?
Emma Reynolds
This Government care deeply about mutuals. We have pledged overall to double the number of mutuals. I do not have a problem with mutual ownership. The problem I have is that the Liberal Democrats have not got a plan together.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
My constituents are not receiving the service they deserve. Many are facing real issues over water pressure, which is intermittent, unreliable and on some days non-existent. This issue has even been raised with me by primary school children when I am on school visits. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the White Paper will begin to force the water companies to take action on these day-to-day issues that really affect people’s lives? If they do not do so, will the regulator give weight to those complaints and will it have the kind of teeth that forces the companies to act, so that my constituents can get the service they deserve and, frankly, are already paying for?
Emma Reynolds
Yes, indeed. The new water regulator, when we are able to legislate for that and set it up, will indeed look at these issues and put consumers at the heart of what it is doing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I was supposed to meet representatives of Severn Trent at a local treatment works in my constituency in December. That meeting was cancelled at short notice after heavy rainfall. They said they did not want me to get my feet wet. I smell a cover-up. The Government’s well-intentioned White Paper is doomed to fail, though, if they do not mandate water companies to measure their sewage outflows by volume. Are the Government going to do that?
Emma Reynolds
We are absolutely determined to bear down on pollution. We are looking more at the number of incidents and ensuring that we have a better picture of the coverage of storm overflows. We have 100% coverage from January last year, and we are looking to increase the amount of coverage for emergency overflows. The White Paper will ensure that the new, more powerful regulator has the teeth and the powers to crack down on pollution and to shine a light on pollution incidents so that there is nowhere to hide when it comes to the illegal use of overflows that we have seen in the past.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for this White Paper, and I concur with many of the comments from colleagues. I attended a community meeting last week on the Kennington Park estate in my constituency to hear from residents of Blythe House, Alverstone House and Lockwood House. Many of them have not had water since Christmas. The responsibility fell on the housing association, and I want to give credit to Hyde Housing for responding and providing water to the residents, especially as many have children, many are elderly and many have mobility issues. We have a situation whereby Thames Water thinks it is not its job to inform councils and housing associations when it is going to lower the pressure on the estates when it is doing works. Can we please ensure that the new regulator will have the right teeth to go after these companies? They ignore everything—all the fines and the warnings. This regulator needs to have teeth. If it does not, this is going to be a slap in the face for all our hard-working constituents.
Emma Reynolds
I can promise my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we are going to deliver: a new, more powerful regulator with teeth. I am concerned about the incident that she describes, so the Water Minister or I will be happy to meet her to discuss it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I broadly welcome the White Paper and its evidence-based recognition that sewage and waste water failures are central to poor water quality, rather than defaulting to blaming agriculture. That approach is entirely absent in Northern Ireland where the Agriculture Minister, Mr Muir, is advancing an extreme, one-sided environmental agenda in the form of a nutrients action programme and blaming farmers alone while Northern Ireland Water pumps over 20 million tonnes of sewage into rivers and loughs each year. Will the Secretary of State agree to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive and share the learning, so that they can learn from what is happening here in GB?
Emma Reynolds
I would not like to get involved in Northern Irish politics—that is not for me to do. I can reassure the hon. Lady, however, that we are working in close co-operation with all the devolved Governments. I met Andrew Muir at the Oxford farming conference, and we discussed water. Early last year, at an interministerial group meeting, we discussed different sources of pollution and how the different devolved Governments are dealing with them.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool is a coastal community home to some of the most beautiful beaches in the north-east, but they are too often polluted by water companies to the detriment of my constituents. I absolutely agree with the Secretary of State that this Government have done more in 18 months to fix this mess than any other Government in history, but does she agree that once we have forced these failed water companies to get their house in order and clean up our waters, we should get them out of the ownership of foreign nationals, hedge funds and private equity, and reverse the worst privatisation in British history?
Emma Reynolds
I would like to see longer-term investors, such as pension funds—I am a former Pensions Minister—being more attracted to invest in the water system. We need a more stable, long-term regulatory approach to get more of those investors involved. I met the Maple Eight when I was in Toronto last year, and there is great interest in investing in our water system, but we have to get the regulatory system right first.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am lucky enough to represent the constituency of Hazel Grove, which includes the junction of the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals. My constituents value our canals because they are green veins throughout our area and a link to our industrial heritage, but they are concerned about the sustainability of funding for our canal network, given what has happened recently with the breach at Whitchurch and a few years ago at the Toddbrook reservoir. The Secretary of State will know the role of the Canal and River Trust when it comes to water management; it looks after 74 reservoirs nationally. She will also know that the ownership model means it cannot pass on the uplift in costs to customers in the way that water companies do. Could the Secretary of State meet me to talk about the funding given to CRT to ensure that our canal network is sustainable for the future, and that we treat it as the asset it is and not a liability to be managed?
Emma Reynolds
I know Whitchurch quite well—I grew up not too far away. The Water Minister or I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss that matter.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s action to reform water regulation after years of neglect during which my constituents have endured leaks, outages and sewage pollution for far too long. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new independent water ombudsman will deliver swift, binding redress for consumers, and that it will be fully operational in time to oversee the 2029 price review, which will set household bills and company investment plans through to 2035?
Emma Reynolds
We will set up the water ombudsman; we need the primary legislation to do that. The ombudsman will have statutory powers and will be able to take forward consumer complaints and disputes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I would say to the Secretary of State “Cofiwch Dryweryn”, because water has always been political in Wales. The White Paper suggests that the UK Government may finally devolve additional powers over water to the Welsh Government. Considering that could have happened years ago under section 48 of the Wales Act 2017, which was delayed—incredibly—at the request of the Labour Welsh Government, can she now set a timeline for when the people of Wales will have power over our own water?
Emma Reynolds
As the right hon. Member will know, there is already a big degree of devolution and we work closely with the Welsh Government. I saw the Deputy First Minister recently, and we discussed the water White Paper that we are publishing today, but also the Green Paper that the Welsh Government are bringing forward in the next few weeks. We are working in lockstep with them, aligning our approaches. We have to do that because, as she says, there are some real cross-border problems, and lots of people—on either side of the border—are affected.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The chief executive of Yorkshire Water said her bonus may
“feel like it’s a lot of money”
and that she gets “paid what the board decide” she “ought to be paid”; £1.5 million through an offshore company feels like a lot of money because it is a lot of money. She was rewarded for failure, and as my constituency still deals with burst water pipes, it feels like her board decides she should be rewarded for failure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new water ombudsman will enforce the prevention of these hidden bonuses, and that infrastructure development will not just end up in higher bills for customers?
Emma Reynolds
This will be an issue for the new regulator, rather than the ombudsman. As a result of the Water (Special Measures) Act, 10 water bosses last year were denied £4 million in bonuses, but there is still more to do. I urge companies to respect the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Ofwat is considering further action to hold these companies to account.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, in which she talked about new reforms for regional planning supporting housing growth. Right across the south-east, we have both very high housing targets, but a totally unreliable fresh water system, as I know the Secretary of State experienced herself when she visited Tunbridge Wells recently. How can these two things be realised when fundamentally we are dealing with, as she puts it, whole-system failure?
Emma Reynolds
We do think these two objectives can be realised. Far too many people in their 20s and 30s are denied the dream of home ownership because of the failure of the previous Government to build the homes we need, but we have also seen a failure to build reservoirs and to maintain the infrastructure we had in the first place. We have not built a reservoir in this country for 30 years, so I am glad that there are now plans to build nine of them. The hon. Member is right that we need water supply to underpin the growth we need in our housing as well.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I have seen at first hand the brilliant work that the volunteers of the Earl of Harrington’s angling club and the Midland canoe club do to test water quality and to clear up and look after our waterways, including our beautiful River Derwent. How will the action that this Government are taking ensure that river pollution and sewage are tackled, and not left to volunteers to clear up, while also bringing down water bills?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to those volunteers. The new regulator will take a more supervisory approach to water companies. We will look at pre-pipe solutions to reduce the volume of rainwater and pollutants entering the sewage system in the first place, trying to move away from a system where we are fixing on failure and towards prevention. That is the right way to ensure that we clean up our waterways as my hon. Friend suggests.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Office for Environmental Protection said in its progress report last week
“Government have made it a priority to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas”,
but there is
“a lack of coherent, detailed delivery plans to address all major pressures”,
especially agricultural water pollution. Agriculture is the source of at least 40% of water pollution, and yet it seems to merit only one page in the White Paper. In my constituency, agriculture accounts for 70% of the issue. I ask the Secretary of State the same question that the Prime Minister dodged earlier: why on earth does it not have adequate attention here? Will she work with farmers to support river-friendly farming methods, and will she meet me and MPs across the House from the Wye catchment to address how we can tackle this major problem?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with the hon. Lady that the water pollution we see in the River Wye is completely unacceptable. That is why we are working closely with the Welsh Government, such as through the £1 million research grant to look at the sources of pollution affecting the River Wye. We are also doubling funding for the Environment Agency to inspect farms so that we have a clearer picture and can better enforce the regulations we already have, and we are streamlining those regulations so that farmers can comply.
The hon. Lady is right that there is a real problem here. I do not count it in the number of words, but there is real action in the document. It sets out what we are going to do to work in partnership with farmers, strengthen regional planning and better target our environmental land management schemes. She will have seen that the environmental improvement plan contains a comprehensive plan to tackle agricultural pollution. I refer her to the document we published before Christmas.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I see that Tory MPs are too scared to turn up to hear how we are cleaning up their mess. As a Newcastle MP, as an engineer and as a cold water swimmer—the North sea is very cold—I welcome the Government’s new vision for water, which will deliver the water my constituents deserve at a price they can afford. I am, quite frankly, tired of the continual chorus that whatever the failure, whatever the fault, the costs must be passed on to the consumer. In a competitive market, consumers can go elsewhere if they do not like the service they are receiving. With water, we have no choice. Will the Minister confirm that if there is a failure or a mess-up by the companies, either they, their shareholders or their management will pay for it, not my constituents?
Emma Reynolds
I admire my hon. Friend for swimming in the sea at all times of the year, by the sound of it. This new approach, the overhaul we are announcing in the White Paper, will establish a more powerful, integrated regulator that has more teeth, and a system that puts an end to the water companies marking their own homework—a system in which there is nowhere to hide for poor performance.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Last year, Southern Water’s chief executive saw their pay double to over £1 million a year, while my constituents in Chichester face rising water bills, sewage outflows that continue for days at a time and the continuing over-abstraction of our chalk streams. What are the Government going to do about these water companies that are evading the bonus ban? Does she agree that a public interest model is the overhaul that we actually need?
Emma Reynolds
As I said, we have already blocked 10 company bosses from taking £4 million-worth of bonuses. I am urging them to respect both the spirit and the letter of the law, and Ofwat is considering further action to hold these companies to account.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
This is the second major programme of business we have seen in this Parliament, which shows that the Government are getting on with cleaning up our rivers and sorting out the water sector. That will be very welcome in Exeter, where the River Exe has borne the brunt of agricultural run-off and pollution over the last few years.
Exeter is also home to the Centre for Resilience in Environment, Water and Waste, which works with partners to explore some of the new challenges that have come up, including better upstream water management, microplastics and pollutants. What would the Minister say about making sure that all water companies work in partnership to look at innovative solutions to the bigger water challenges that we face? Will she visit to see the centre’s fantastic work?
Emma Reynolds
I am always very happy to visit my hon. Friend. I know that the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), visited last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is absolutely right that we have to strengthen the system. We will strengthen the regional planning system and we are doubling the funding for catchment partnerships. We have to bear down on all sources of water pollution because, as he said, we have to protect our beloved rivers—the one in his constituency and many across the country—that saw record levels of pollution under the previous Government.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The White Paper does not go far enough. It leaves water in private hands while prices rise, pipes rot, rivers are polluted and shareholders profit. Why should my constituents have to pay for the consequences of private mismanagement? Does the Secretary of State accept what many across this Chamber have already said: that the only meaningful change or reform is to bring water back into public ownership?
Emma Reynolds
I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Like him, I am really frustrated with the levels of pollution in our waterways, and with some of the poor consumer service we see. I do not think the right answer is to embark on a hugely expensive and legally complicated nationalisation, because it would detract from the good work we are doing to get a grip on regulation and to set up a new regulator. He may think it is the right answer, but where would the money come from? Does he want less spending on schools and hospitals as a result?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in the White Paper, including the MOT for assets, the increase in funding for community and catchment partnerships, and the greater say for communities in regional planning. However, my Shipley constituents have been let down by Yorkshire Water over many decades, through its blatant profiteering at the expense of customers, leveraging debt of some £6.2 billion. I may have missed it, but will the Secretary of State please assure me that the regulator will have powers to step in when companies such as Yorkshire Water, and more importantly its owner Kelda Holdings, have consistently failed customers?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest, and indeed for her submission to the Independent Water Commission. On the financial management of our water companies, we have set out in the White Paper that the new regulator will have the power to step in to ensure that unmanageable levels of debt are not taken on by water companies. We have seen some very poor financial dealings in the past, which have led to poor performance and poor maintenance of water assets.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the White Paper and a more effective regulator, which is really good. However, I am concerned by the lack of urgency on clean water supply capacity. The report talks of a shortage of 5 billion litres a day by 2050. Meanwhile, we read warnings that seven English regions will be in serious water stress by 2030, and gov.uk and the NFU have warned of potential droughts this summer if not enough rain is captured over January, which has been dry until now. Will the Government accelerate plans for more clean water supply before the 2050 and 2055 dates?
Emma Reynolds
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the White Paper and the work on the new regulator. He is right to underline the importance of water capacity. My hon. Friend the Water Minister has really got a grip on this and is looking at how we prepare for events such as droughts. Perhaps I could set up a meeting for both of them to discuss that.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Wessex Water, which serves my Poole constituency, was previously banned from paying bonuses to its company bosses. However, it was able to get around the ban by calling the payments something else or using other mechanisms to pay for failure. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain whether the new White Paper will finally clamp down on these unacceptable practices?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is unacceptable. These companies should respect both the spirit and the letter of the law. As I have said, Ofwat is considering what further action it can take to ensure that these companies obey the law that this House passed last year.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I welcome the White Paper and thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work. I am keen to understand how it will work in practice. As the Secretary of State will know, Thames Water’s largest equity shareholder wrote down its shareholding to zero in May 2024, so the equity is widely regarded as worthless. That leaves the debt, three quarters of which is held by the London & Valley consortium, the class A creditor. Does she agree that, given that the equity is worthless, leaving only the debt, the consortium obviously has material influence over the company?
Emma Reynolds
I am sorry, but I cannot get into the specifics of Thames Water at what is quite a sensitive moment. What I can say is that it is financially stable, but the Government are prepared for all eventualities, including a special administration regime if one were needed, but I cannot go into the detail of what is happening.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Earlier this week, my team and I secured a £12,000 refund from Thames Water for one of my constituents whose pipes had been left to leak for almost half a year. Half a year ago, when I first met Thames Water bosses, I asked them to explain how they would be using higher bills to pay for better pipes and infrastructure in my constituency. It is now almost the end of the financial year and they have set out no explanation. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that my constituents are getting their money’s worth out of Thames Water?
Emma Reynolds
Before we legislate for the new regulator, we are encouraging and working with Ofwat to see what can be done to move to a more supervisory approach—similar to what we do in financial services, of which my hon. Friend is well aware—so that we can have a much more tailored and targeted approach. Different water companies are in different situations: some are performing better than others, and some are performing very poorly. I am really sorry to hear what she said. This Government have more than doubled the compensation that consumers will receive if there are outages and problems, which is to be welcomed.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the White Paper. Some £7.6 billion has gone from the pockets of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, and all other customers of Yorkshire Water, into the pockets of shareholders in the form of dividends. In addition, there has been £1.4 billion in interest payments on money held by the company, yet bills have risen by an eye-watering 28% to 34% in the past year, and are predicted to rise by a further 30% between now and 2030. What steps will the Secretary of State and the Government take, and will they consider retrospective penalties for past failures to claw back dividends that went to shareholders instead of being invested in pipes or used to reduce customers’ bills?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for the kind words with which he started his question. Within days of taking office, my predecessor ringfenced the money that should be invested in maintaining the water infrastructure he talks about. If it is not spent on that, it will go back to customers. We took that action as soon as we got into government.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
This week, work begins on storage tanks to stop raw sewage pouring into the River Ouzel during periods of heavy rainfall—I know that my constituents and residents welcome that, as I am sure do the fish in the river. Does the Secretary of State agree that since we have had a Labour Government, it really has been all cisterns go on issues such as this?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must look at the pre-pipe solutions that she talks about, and the water White Paper emphasises the need to ensure that we reduce the volume of rainwater and pollutants entering the sewerage system in the first place.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The White Paper says that, along with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DEFRA will implement a new “plan-making system”—a term I have frankly never heard before. I do not know what it means, but it says that water companies will be designated a consultation body for this new plan-making system. Separately, it says that the Government will only consider making water companies statutory consultees in planning applications. Meanwhile, the White Paper says that the Government will ensure that the “right to connect” supports their house building targets. Does the Secretary of State understand that if water companies are not statutory consultees, and we keep building more housing and connecting it to the system, we will simply get more sewage?
Emma Reynolds
The Water Minister chairs a water delivery taskforce, and she is getting a grip on the investment in water assets and infrastructure that water companies have promised. That will ensure that there are fewer leaks and that there is less pressure on the system. We believe there is a way to ensure that we boost water capacity and build more homes in our country.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Incredibly, last year saw the fifth incident of agricultural pollution in just three years in the River Weaver, which runs through the centre of Nantwich in my constituency, resulting in thousands of dead fish and a stench that permeated our town centre. I pay tribute to Stuart Mitton from the Restore the Weaver action group, local angling groups and local ward councillor Anna Burton for the work they are doing on this, and I welcome the White Paper. How will its proposals ensure that we tackle agricultural run-off into rivers such as the River Weaver and, crucially, that where pollution does occur, we see swift justice?
Emma Reynolds
As I have said, the environmental improvement plan that we published before Christmas sets out a comprehensive plan to tackle agricultural pollution. We are building on that in the White Paper, and we will consult on options to reform how sludge use in agriculture is regulated—that is one measure in the White Paper. We are also doubling the funding for the Environment Agency so that it can increase the number of farm inspections and work in partnership with farmers to get this right.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
At the first Prime Minister’s questions of this Parliament I had the opportunity to invite the Prime Minister to scrap Ofwat, so I am delighted to see that in the White Paper.
The Minister has said that Ofwat will now protect consumers better. We had terrible floods in my constituency in September 2024 from surface water. The lead local flood authority investigated those and, as is its responsibility, produced section 19 reports. I was shocked to learn that the LLFA has no powers to compel water companies to act on the recommendations—Thames Water had failed to inspect a critical pump for over 20 years. Will the Secretary of State set out how the new regulator will ensure that section 19 recommendations are taken forward to protect consumers better in future?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member is right to say that we need to abolish Ofwat—we might have had that idea previously too, by the way. As he knows, at the moment we have four regulators, and sometimes there are duplications or regulatory gaps. That is why the focus of our reforms is on ensuring that we integrate the environmental regulation and the economic regulation of water, because for too long those things have been separate. I would be happy to write to him to respond on the specific issue that he raises.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituents in Rushcliffe, notably in East Leake, have faced sewage spills for far too long, so I am pleased to be working with Severn Trent Water to ensure that new pumping stations and rising mains are installed in East Leake, Wysall and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds over the current price period. How will having a new single water regulator, with real teeth, ensure that that commitment is delivered in the current price period?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the opportunity to mention that we will be publishing a transition plan which, as I mentioned in my statement, will set out a road map from where we are now to having the opportunity to legislate. I want to make progress before that Bill is in the House, so that we can start to shift the dial, build on what we did last year in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, and move towards that supervisory system that will give the regulator more teeth. We need that new regulator and those new powers in legislation to bear down on incidents such as the one my hon. Friend is talking about.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the abolition of Ofwat, but I wish to let the Secretary of State know about one of my constituents. Marion from Axminster is aged 85. Her direct debit to South West Water this month is £45, but next month it will nearly treble to over £118. Residents who I represent are fed up with being ripped off by these profiteers. Will the Government look again at Liberal Democrat proposals for a new ownership model, whereby water companies such as South West Water are mutually owned by customers?
Emma Reynolds
As I said previously, I do not have a problem with mutual ownership—I think it is a good thing—but the question the Liberal Democrats have to answer is how they will get there.
Finally, may I say a big thank you to my officials? The water White Paper was a very heavy lift, and there is more detail to come in the transition plan and the water Bill. I also thank Members for the interest we have had across the House, other than from the Conservatives.
Rail Passengers’ Charter
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Rail Passengers’ Charter, setting out certain guarantees and targets in relation to the provision of passenger rail services; to make provision for penalties for failures to comply with the Charter; and for connected purposes.
Our railway network is relied on by millions of people every day, both as passengers and as beneficiaries of rail freight. The Railways Bill currently making its way through Parliament will make the biggest change in over 30 years. It is therefore right that we seize this opportunity to bring our experience of using the railway into line with 21st-century expectations and challenges.
Passenger charters are not new. I have further burnished my credentials as a dull dinner party guest by reading a few of them in recent days. Every train operating company has one, but this Bill would introduce greater consistency, cut the gap between good intentions and reality and, critically, create a charter with the teeth needed to truly put passenger experience and value for money first.
All of this is not to deny that aspects of our railway have improved. The route I frequently take to travel to this place, between Didcot and London Paddington, has a far more generous off-peak train service than 30 years ago, with four fast trains per hour compared with one back then. Trains are more frequent on most routes across the country than they were, and online and digital ticketing brings convenience for many. However, problems remain. With the exception of tickets with seat reservations, standard class tickets do not come with any guarantee of a seat, many trains lack the necessary space for storage of luggage and similar bulky items, and usability of wi-fi and mobile phone signal reception is highly variable.
Perhaps the gravest issue is that of overcrowding on trains and its unpredictability. Overcrowding is sometimes understandable, and perhaps even forgivable, for example if there is extreme unforeseen disruption, for a major sporting event where efforts to increase service provision have not matched demand, or for short commuter hops at peak times. However, much overcrowding in recent years seems to have been the result of a conscious decision, made not by frequently demonised private train operating companies but by central Government tightly managing post-pandemic contracts with those train operators.
There are, alas, examples from Oxfordshire, home to my Didcot and Wantage constituency. My wonderful parliamentary assistant, Hayleigh, is now on maternity leave, but for many months, she commuted while she was pregnant. Such was the frequency of five-car intercity trains operated by Great Western Railway, including on long-distance routes, such as those between Swansea and Cardiff to London, even at peak times, that she frequently opted to delay her journey to work by 90 minutes, until a more suitable nine-car train was shown on websites to be running.
The issue she faced on such five-car trains was not the willingness of other passengers to give up their seat for her, but the fact that she could not even get beyond the vestibule area, next to the doors, into the main saloon of the train because it was often full of people who were having to stand. The commonness of five-car trains on the GWR network is partly a result of retiring older trains in the west country without immediate replacements, leading to the fleet needing to be more thinly spread, which is now gradually being rectified.
Another example is CrossCountry, which still runs a timetable well below pre-pandemic levels half a decade on from those difficult times. CrossCountry is acquiring more trains, which will reduce crowding problems, but for many years it has been common for trains of just four or five carriages to run only once per hour between Reading, Oxford, Birmingham and beyond, including at peak times. My own experience of trying to board the 17:40 from Oxford to Manchester resembled the railway version of “The Hunger Games”.
Punctuality and getting a seat are core expectations, but rail passengers rightly expect more, particularly for longer-distance journeys. Intercity trains introduced this decade on the east coast main line, between London and Edinburgh, lack the dedicated vehicles of their InterCity 225 predecessors for surge luggage capacity, which is badly needed during the summer and the Edinburgh festival. Elsewhere, provision for pushchairs and bicycles is often patchy, and sometimes in competition. Space for such items is not necessarily at the cost of seats, as it often stated. I have been on trains where carriage of additional bicycles was refused due to lack of flexible storage space, despite half the seats on the train being available.
Much of the network remains inaccessible to people using wheelchairs, and they find booked assistance services inconsistent and less reliable than they should be. Toilet reliability can also cause frustration, discomfort and real distress for passengers. There are train journeys of over three hours in duration, for example the South Western Railway service between London and Exeter, that lack provision of any on-board refreshments. That might sound like a trivial issue, and stations often have much in the way of a retail offer, but if, for one reason or another, people are held up on the way to the station, whether because of traffic or a last-minute delay on the tube, and they run out of time to get something to eat or drink, in the case of SWR on that route they are stuffed.
On-board wi-fi or the ability to receive a decent mobile phone signal suitable for modern working methods is often lacking, as my colleague Ruth experiences on her journeys between Northumberland and London. To some, these may sound like minor inconveniences and mere whingeing trifles. Indeed, despite the valiant efforts of many of those who work on the railway, it can seem that railway passengers are almost viewed as hostages, with no viable alternative, which reduces the focus on tackling these problems.
However, we live in changing times. Not only does public transport continue to compete with the car’s convenient, connection-free journey from A to B, the economics and operation of cars are changing rapidly. To what degree is the public transport of the 2020s ready for a possible future of widespread driverless and electric cars? An example of the changing economics of long-distance travel is that of my friends Mark and Kev, who live in Newton-le-Willows, halfway between Manchester and Liverpool. Their electric car now makes the journey to London significantly cheaper than it would be by train, and some suboptimal experiences of Avanti West Coast’s train service further push them in the car direction.
Critics of public transport may ask, well, if the car is becoming greener and cheaper, does it matter if the passenger railway gets left behind? It is my strong contention that it does indeed matter, as it is far from certain that the electric and driverless car revolution will benefit everyone. Nothing can match the train for its ability to convey large numbers of people efficiently, particularly in urban areas, or to offer an on-board environment conducive to work, sleep, rest, eating or listening to music, although in the case of the latter I would ask that everybody uses earphones.
High-quality and reliable public transport is essential for social and economic inclusion, so how can a 21st-century refresh of the railway passengers’ charter contribute to a better future? First, we must protect charter arrangements already in place, which principally take the form of delay repay. Perhaps because the UK’s delay compensation arrangements are more generous than elsewhere in Europe, I keep hearing murmurs about ideas to water it down. That would be the wrong approach. The best way to reduce delay repay costs is, of course, to prevent and reduce delays in the first place.
Secondly, a refreshed passengers’ charter should be used to learn from past mistakes, regarding design and specification of trains. It was an error on the part of the Government and the public sector, not the private sector, not to specify fold-down tables, comfortable seats, device-charging sockets or wi-fi for the class 700 Thameslink fleet, ordered in the early 2010s. Given that trains have a lifespan of 30 to 40 years, it is important that we get them right from the beginning, so let us now get this right, with a clear set of minimum and consistent standards for commuter, rural, regional and express passenger trains.
Once train fleets consistently have the amenities the modern passenger expects, charters should be expanded to include the principle that what is offered on a given train fleet, whether that is seats, toilets or wi-fi, should be working. The existing delay repay partial refund concept should be expanded to cover such amenities, with appropriate exclusions, such as the entitlement to a seat waived for journeys of under 30 minutes or during major disruption or special events.
The advancement of the charter concept brings with it the hope of a truly 21st-century railway, which will attract the patronage needed for the railway’s financial sustainability: a train service that even commuters may look forward to using, because instead of a daily grind, it will be a chance for a relaxed transition between home and workplace, and a long-distance train service that is less of a distress purchase, and more a comfortable, relaxing or productive alternative to a car, whether self-driven or otherwise. Our railway recently celebrated its 250th anniversary, so what better time to reset our ambition and ensure that we will feel even more proud of our railway’s achievements at the 300th anniversary, in 2074?
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Mr Will Forster, Helen Morgan, Steff Aquarone, Helen Maguire, Zöe Franklin, Daisy Cooper, Ian Roome, Martin Wrigley, Charlotte Cane and Liz Jarvis present the Bill.
Olly Glover accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 370).
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:24 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 326 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:39 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names or “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman”.
Clause 1
Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert—
“at the higher or additional rate”.
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, page 2, line 26, leave out from “as” to end and insert—
“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).
(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”
This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “income tax” insert—
“at the higher or additional rate”.
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland from the £2,000 cap.
Amendment 8, page 3, line 39, leave out from “as” to end and insert—
“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).
(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”
This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap in Northern Ireland by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of impact on SME recruitment and retention—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to the—
(a) recruitment of staff, and
(b) retention of staff.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.
New clause 2—Review of impact on small and medium-sized business tax liabilities—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to—
(a) businesses’ overall tax burden,
(b) employment costs, and
(c) business solvency.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the overall tax burden and employment costs faced by SMEs.
New clause 3—Review of impact on employee marginal tax rates—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on the number of employees brought into a higher marginal rate of income tax.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must give particular regard to the impact of the freezing of income tax thresholds between April 2022 and April 2031.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the number of employees who move into a higher tax band due the increase in their taxable income due to the effects of this Bill.
New clause 4—Reviews of the impact of the Act—
“(1) The Treasury must, before March 2029, lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act.
(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the adequacy of pension contributions made by or on behalf of individuals affected by this Act,
(b) use of salary sacrifice schemes and optional remuneration arrangements, and
(c) any effects on the investment capability of UK pension funds.
(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a follow-up assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act before March 2034.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the change made under this Act, before they take effect, and again five years later.
New clause 5—Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values—
“(1) The Treasury must calculate and publish the projected lifetime value of an individual’s pension before and after the changes made by under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the projected lifetime value is the total amount of pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime.
(3) The calculations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and
(b) include illustrative examples covering different pension entitlements.”
New clause 6—Assessment of changes to pension saving through salary sacrifice schemes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 15 months of the provisions of this Act coming into effect, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on the amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes.
(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include an—
(a) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months preceding the provisions of this Act coming into effect,
(b) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months following the provisions of this Act coming into effect, and
(c) an assessment of the difference between those amounts.”
Mark Garnier
It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end.
Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance.
New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions?
There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said:
“We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.”
There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered?
We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it.
Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments.
Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap.
More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer.
The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings.
In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap.
The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. She said:
“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay.”
At a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension.
I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying. This is about not just those on lower incomes, but those on middle incomes. It is about the mums and dads of the students—all this falls back on their shoulders. Does he agree that this Bill is an attack on younger people who have aspirations and hopes for the future? We should be encouraging young people and helping them, and the Government have very clearly fallen down on that.
Mark Garnier
I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
You have years to go.
Mark Garnier
I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech.
This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
My chief concern with this Bill is that, like a lot of the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, it looks like it may be a route to some medium-term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer-term consequences. That will help the Chancellor meet her fiscal rules, but I say “may” because the Bill does not kick in this year, next year, the year after or the year after that; rather conveniently, it will kick in during the election year of 2029-30. That is pretty useful if you are fighting an election and want to meet your fiscal rules, but it is not very useful if you are trying to be fiscally prudent, so that leads to some scepticism about what is actually going on here.
Given the pressures on the state pension and the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save more towards their retirement. Let us look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses that rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state:
“Higher National Insurance costs and operational disruption would make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth, or plan effectively.”
We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this Bill, they were battling the sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills, supplies, business rates, the costs of Brexit and so on, and they also have to adjust to the changes in their NICs bills that the Chancellor announced a year ago. One can imagine how that must feel for small business owners—the additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable.
This Bill is a double whammy on last year’s national insurance hikes—the NICs burden went up last year due to the rate increase, and now this measure is raising their NICs bills for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on businesses, and on small businesses in particular. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the Government to publish full assessments of the impact of the Bill on the recruitment and retention and the tax liabilities of businesses.
Let us now consider the potential damage that this choice will do further down the road by disincentivising saving. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK are not on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, which is a 4% increase since 2023. Research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year, but projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace, given the rising cost of living.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), challenged Labour MPs to champion their constituencies. One of the biggest concerns I have about pensions in my constituency of Harlow is the number of people who are not paying into any pension at all, particularly those who are self-employed or lower earners. Does the Liberal Democrat spokesperson agree that the real conversation that we in this place need to be having about pensions is how we encourage people in my constituency and beyond to save for their futures, which I think is what he is suggesting?
Charlie Maynard
I absolutely agree—well said.
The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run.
Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response:
“At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the reminder of the excellent debate we had before the Christmas break. I thank him and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for their contributions. I will briefly reiterate the case for the three short and perfectly formed clauses of this Bill before focusing my remarks on the hon. Members’ amendments.
As hon. Members know, this reform was inevitable. We have had a detailed discussion of the last Government’s secret plan to implement a very similar proposal—the “secret plan” label came from the Conservative party, not Government Front Benchers—and the cost of pensions salary sacrifice was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030. That is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. The status quo is also hard to defend when low earners and the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK are entirely excluded, reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Minister will recall our many happy hours together in Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. One of the issues that the Liberal Democrats raised was the need for an MOT for people as they approach pension age, to see how their pension is going and test its adequacy. Does the Minister accept that putting these stark restrictions in place will significantly restrict the ability of somebody who realises that they are running out of time to make additional contributions to their pension to get to a better place? Would he consider extra flexibility, so that people could perhaps use 10-year allowances in three years?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I remind Members that the scope of this Bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought not to be bringing in new concepts.
Torsten Bell
Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will follow your advice, but will try to respond to some of the hon. Member’s points when I address the question of how we have gone about making the changes that this Bill introduces.
As I have said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach, which is my answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). The Bill is pragmatic in that it continues to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. It is pragmatic in that it gives employers and the industry four years to prepare.
Chris Vince
The Minister has said that the cost to the Exchequer of the salary sacrifice scheme is going to triple by the end of this decade. Does he agree that that is unsustainable for the Treasury, and also that we in this Chamber have to get real? The reason why people in my constituency of Harlow cannot even begin to think about pensions or savings is that they are living day to day. What this Government need to do is tackle the cost of living crisis, and that is what they are doing.
Torsten Bell
In a shock move, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Members of those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this Bill today cannot keep coming to this Chamber, day after day, calling for additional spending in more areas, while opposing any means of raising taxes. [Interruption.] Well, you have raised the welfare budget, and without trying—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. First, I have not raised anything. Secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare budget. This is a very narrow Bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I have given to other Members.
Torsten Bell
I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.
I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?
Torsten Bell
The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension.
Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity. That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it.
Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.
Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today.
Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts.
New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make.
New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point.
New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.
I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings. I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee national insurance contributions on salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I have said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030 without reform. The Government are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform: first, by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected; secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead-in time, so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare; and thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely tax-advantageous. The Government continue to provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance relief on pension contributions each year. Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax-advantaged part of the system.
In this debate and others on pensions, we have heard strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important. We all look at the forecasts for private pension income and see that they show lower private pension income on average for those retiring in 2050 relative to those retiring today. That is not an acceptable place to be. Answering that question is the job of the Pensions Commission, which we have put in place with cross-party support. It is rightly examining the question of retirement income adequacy and fairness. I gently note that those groups that we all agree are under-saving for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups.
Part of what we are doing through the Bill is delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system alongside other measures from the Budget. These measures are what it takes to keep waiting lists falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead. Those who do not wish to support changes like these cannot have it both ways and call for additional spending, additional support on energy bills and the rest.
More generally, it is important that we all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £500 billion a year. If we defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly, that means that higher taxes for everybody else. We are not prepared to see that happen.
Indeed, I am sure that in their hearts the Opposition parties also believe that these reforms are necessary. As a test of that, I invite the shadow Minister to stand up and commit to reversing the changes if—though it is very unlikely—the Conservatives ever happen to form a Government again. I am 100% sure that he will not do that, because he knows that these changes need to be made. On the basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister.
First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment.
Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated.
The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment.
The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth.
Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround.
Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy.
As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November,
“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”
How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place.
Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading.
People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.
Charlie Maynard
I will let it pass from here.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business of the House (Today)
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 373 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2025, be approved.
As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3,500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state. We owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. Ninety per cent of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone’s father, brother, sister, mother or child; each one a tragic loss of life.
In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, but for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands. There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement, reached between the last Government and the Irish Government in 2014, and, most recently, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms. But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the careful and thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. Does he agree that, with this remedial order, he is doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones. They are the people we have in our minds today. It was the Conservatives’ bad legislation that led us to have to pass a remedial order, for only the 11th time since the second world war. Does he agree that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. This is a very long intervention. Many speakers wish to get in this afternoon, so I urge Members to keep interventions short.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that the legacy Act needed dealing with. Any Government that came into office in summer 2024 would have to be doing what we are doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of events, because this Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle—I will go on to advance the argument a little later—but the Act was also, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European convention on human rights.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is an immensely courteous Member of this House and always has been. He will be aware, however, that there is a live legal case by the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, and that the very Human Rights Act he cited says that this kind of order ought not to be moved—indeed, it would be ultra vires—while a case is proceeding. How does he feel about that, and will he explain to the House why we are debating this at all given all that I have said?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly to precisely that point a little later in my speech.
It is the Government’s view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative for us to act, and this remedial order is the first step in that process. The remedial order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in the Dillon case to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
One of the main reasons for the failure of the legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered, in cold blood, soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. In fairness, it probably seemed reassuring to veterans, and it was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts, but it was a false promise that protected no one. It was never commenced, which is a very important fact. It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations and, as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity, and while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist.
Nevertheless, while the Act has not been commenced, for many families any uncertainty about their loved ones’ killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.
David Crabbe, an Ulster Defence Regiment veteran who sits on the victims and survivors forum, said of immunity:
“The vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law, that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving law and order.”
And it was not only a false promise; it created a false equivalence between veterans on the one hand and terrorists on the other, and it still technically sits on the statute book today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation, but as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum. It was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland, but it was a price to be paid for peace.
The point I am making in relation to this remedial order is that the last Government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. The noble Lord Dodds said of the legacy Bill—which, by the way, he described as “rotten”—that it
“basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong.”
That is why we are bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity that have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland. Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider, significant reforms contained in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles-related civil cases that stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 Act left some 800 troubles-related civil cases involving the Ministry of Defence untouched.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may shortly be coming on to this, but civil cases have been raised as a concern given the potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Will he outline what he expects in terms of civil cases against those who served in our military or security services?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those 800 cases were untouched and the Act allowed them to carry on—that is a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting at the beginning of this week, of which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members are aware—but it did stop about 230 new civil claims proceeding. Those claims were lodged after First Reading of the legacy Bill, and about 120 of them are against the MOD. It also prevented any more claims from being brought in future. The point I am making is that there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last Government’s legacy Act, and 120 cases against the MOD that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. As we know, that bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal obligations.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?
Hilary Benn
It is not unusual for higher courts to take a different view on a matter to that taken by lower courts—that is the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman that I gave to an earlier intervention, which is that the Government’s view is that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.
We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?
Hilary Benn
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.
Hilary Benn
If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I will make some progress.
We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That is our view of principle, although I recognise that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), takes a different view.
I will now turn to the argument that the House should delay the approval of the remedial order, which we heard advanced in the House before Christmas. Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds: first, if there has been declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation and an appeal against the declaration has been “determined or abandoned”—the word “abandoned” is really important here—and secondly, if there are “compelling reasons” to do so.
The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024 the newly elected Government abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The Government are therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity and civil claims provisions are no longer part of the appeal now before the Supreme Court.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?
Hilary Benn
It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct that the Government are continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, which the Government have advanced, as to whether article 2 is being interpreted in the right way, because it seems like rather an expansive interpretation.
The fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework—that is what the court allowed it to come in and talk about—and the fact that the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article 2, do not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European convention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will give way to the two Members I have seen standing, and then I will bring my remarks to a close so that others can contribute.
Jim Allister
May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says:
“Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”,
because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.
Hilary Benn
With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Lincoln Jopp
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.”
Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed. Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.
Hilary Benn
I will continue.
I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Hilary Benn
Since it is my friend the hon. Member, I will give way one last time.
Jim Shannon
On the point of trust, just so that we get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw the inter-state case if this legislation passes?
Hilary Benn
The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland—[Interruption.] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more. What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I just ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that the Committee’s opinion was not unanimous.
Hilary Benn
I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the
“unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has”
sufficiently
“compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”.
The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland.
As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach. We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that
“peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”.
The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts.
We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success. Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case.
The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land.
On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information. We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005.
That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it. I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In essence, what my hon. Friend is talking about here with the agreements about the destruction of weaponry and the loss, therefore, of any ability to prosecute or proceed was, in a sense, one way. There is no way on earth that the same process would have been allowed for soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland. All evidence was kept, captured and can be used against them, whereas the weaponry that was destroyed and all other matters, such as letters of comfort, tended in one direction. When the Government talk about equivalence, they are wrong. It has never been about equivalence; it has been about one-way traffic.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now.
When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done.
We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.
David Davis
The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.
David Smith
We can talk about political parties and we can talk about the general population, but does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there is nearly universal opposition among victims of terrorism to the conditional immunity in the legacy Act?
Alex Burghart
No, I do not acknowledge that. I have met victims, and people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is often said, and rightly, that what is very important is that families should find out the truth about what happened. Which scenario makes it more likely that families will get the truth after all this time? Is it a scenario in which people can be prosecuted on either side, and therefore have an incentive, if they are guilty, to conceal the truth, or is it a scenario such as existed under the legislation introduced by our Government, whereby people are much encouraged to tell the truth about what happened because they know that they will not be punished if they do so?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited.
That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.
David Davis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?
Alex Burghart
Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.
Lincoln Jopp
As well as the self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a proxy war? It is all about relitigating the question, “Who won?” Does he agree that we are allowing our brave servicemen and women, who served the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland, to be used as pawns in a dreadful proxy game to relitigate the question, “Who won?”
Alex Burghart
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters. The truth is that, for some people, this is the continuation of the troubles by other means. It is time to draw a line.
If the Government did not withdraw their appeal because of conditional immunity, which they supported in the past, and if they did not refuse to appeal because of views in Northern Ireland on their own legislation, it must be for another reason. I do not know what that reason is, and I suspect that we will never know, but I wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this Government to have a close relationship with the Irish Government as part of the European reset.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Surely we are regrettably here because of our membership of a foreign court. Without our membership of the ECHR, we would not be in this mess or having this debate, and we could be moving on towards truth and reconciliation.
Alex Burghart
That is exactly one of the reasons why the next Conservative Government will leave the European convention on human rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Human Rights Act 1998 does not require the Government to take any action as a consequence of the decisions that were made in the courts; it is entirely a matter for this House. The Government have made a choice. They had a choice to pursue the change through primary legislation or through this remedial order. They made a choice, notwithstanding the fact that they have a Bill coming down the line. Frankly, I think that was a ridiculous decision by my Committee, but there it is. [Laughter.]
Alex Burghart
I believe that we almost got a scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am grateful to him for pre-empting some of what I am about to say. I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said that veterans are being used as pawns in lawfare, but I wonder whether the case against veterans is a pawn in a bigger game that the Government are playing with the European Union. The Secretary of State says he has no choice, but of course His Majesty’s Government do have a choice. They have options.
The first option the Government had was to appeal, but they did not. The second option they have is to wait. On 15 October last year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, represented pro bono by Lord Wolfson KC, was heard by the Court, and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the Court is now considering. It is perfectly in scope for the UK Supreme Court to find that elements of the legacy Act are not actually incompatible with the European convention on human rights. However, if the Secretary of State’s remedial order has gone through both Houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the Government will have used an order that they had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation that should still be in place. The Government can avoid this: all they need do is wait and see what the Supreme Court says. In fairness, the Secretary of State thinks he knows what the Supreme Court will say. In reality, I am not sure that he does—but he has that option.
Lincoln Jopp
I hope I am not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said the Government are using this guillotine motion to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place because of the urgency, and that that urgency was created by a desire to “build trust” in both the civilian victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. In wanting to build trust, he seemed to miss out one group: military veterans, who will also come under consideration if he drops the guillotine on the existing Act today.
Alex Burghart
Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
It seems to me that the Secretary of State is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, that gives him the opportunity—entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever—to bring in this remedial order, but he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the remedial order is based is very much in point in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, so what the Court will do, if it decides against him, is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order that he is bringing in. However, because technically he can bring it in, he has decided to do so. That is not like the Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—
Alex Burghart
Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend.
The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires.
Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.
Alex Burghart
I meant to say, “the joint first best part of the New Forest”.
The Secretary of State has invoked the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is my understanding that when it wrote its report, it was unaware that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was being heard in the Supreme Court, and I rather think that that may have had a profound effect on what it wrote.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I cannot respond directly to the claim that the hon. Gentleman just made, because that would be breaching parliamentary privilege, which I would not want to do, I will simply put on the record that our Committee considered all the relevant evidence when we created not just our second report on this remedial order but our first too. We considered all the evidence in front of us, we made our reports and we stand by both of them.
Alex Burghart
I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it.
We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Would the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring this measure forward: to placate the Irish Government and their timeline rather than the timeline of this place?
Alex Burghart
I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing. At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I think that many of those supporting the Omagh families would like to see a parallel and comprehensive inquiry. Does the hon. Member agree that the logical thing to do would have been to co-design that, and for both Governments to bring forward inquiries in parallel, rather than his Government acting unilaterally when they announced theirs?
Alex Burghart
I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.
Jim Shannon
The reason we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear. It was a murder haven for years. Many people who committed murders, some of which we might hear about later, escaped across the border. How are we going to rebuild bridges without honesty about state collusion that included IRA terrorists and the Irish Government? Quite clearly, their hands are dirty. When it comes to the legislation, I want to see the same accountability for the Republic of Ireland Government, their Ministers and the Garda Síochána officers. My constituents have never had justice. I want to see justice for them.
Alex Burghart
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer.
The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.
David Davis
My hon. Friend’s comments tie in directly to those from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). In the Omagh bombing, the bomb was constructed in Ireland, the detonator was made—at a factory, in effect—in Ireland, the car came from Ireland, they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards, and there is a suggestion that the Irish special branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened; there is a very good reason why the Irish Government do not want to have an inquiry into their part in the matter.
Alex Burghart
Indeed. Those are all things that we would all love to get to the bottom of.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I say to Labour Back Benchers who are considering how they might vote, not just this evening but also when we get to the Bill proper, that this does not have to be done in this way.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I would like to make the point that a lot of work is done in good faith in this House, particularly on my Select Committee and particularly by the Secretary of State. I really do not appreciate the way in which this debate is being led by those on the Opposition Benches. The shadow Secretary of State should take a while to look through the recommendations contained in the Committee’s work on the troubles, take them Committee seriously and have productive conversations on how to move this matter forward.
Alex Burghart
I take everything the hon. Lady’s Committee does incredibly seriously. There is a good deal of experience on it and she always has interesting witnesses. I was very interested in the remarks made at her Committee the other day by experts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope to have the opportunity to talk to her about that, as well as to the people who were giving evidence.
I am afraid, though, that none of that takes away from the fact that there is a choice before this House. We do not have to go down the route of erasing the line we have attempted to draw under the troubles. I say to Labour Members that there is not just a moral risk; there is also a political risk for anyone who has doubts. Simply put, the Prime Minister has, over the course of the past few months, U-turned 12 or 13 times—which is it? [Interruption.] Oh, 14 times—I lose track. There is every possibility that, just as there was a U-turn 24 hours ago on social media for young people—because of representations that were made, I believe, by 60 Labour Back Benchers—so there is the opportunity to stop the Government in their tracks on this incredibly serious issue.
Lincoln Jopp
The shadow Secretary of State makes a very powerful point, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is pretty unlikely his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight Labour Back Benchers here to hear this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place.
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to put on the record. Sadly, there are not many Labour Back Benchers here to hear the debate. I wish there were, because, as I say, there is an alternative. I do believe that if Labour Back Benchers were to mount significant pressure in private, the Government would think again. If they did, they would create the opportunity, once again, for many of our brave veterans from Operation Banner to be able to sleep peacefully at night.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I remind all hon. Members to be mindful of the past and the future. The Conservatives sought to draw a line. This Government are erasing that line and in so doing dredging up the past in a way that will allow the troubles to be fought again and again in the courtroom. This continuation of the conflict by other means—by legal means—ultimately undermines and reduces the opportunity we have for reconciliation. It also undeniably comes at an operational cost. We know that because those who know most about military operations tell us it is so. General Sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall—both of whom have served our country at the very highest levels—write today in the Telegraph:
“Those currently serving, particularly in operations where judgement is exercised under extreme pressure, are watching closely. If lawful decisions taken in good faith can be re-examined endlessly decades later, confidence in command, willingness to serve and trust in political backing inevitably suffer. Enemies and allies notice this as well.”
Let us remember the generals’ words.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the remedial order. It is a necessary and overdue step if the Government are to retain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that they are serious about justice, accountability and dealing honestly with the legacy of the troubles.
As several hon. and gallant Members have said from the Government Benches, those who served never wanted special protection, exemptions or immunity from the law. They wanted and expected exactly what the public expect: to be judged by the same universal standards of justice that apply to everyone else. Accountability does not weaken the armed forces but strengthens trust in them.
The remedial order recognises that basic principle. It removes the conditional immunity and de facto amnesty contained in the 2023 legacy Act—provisions that were found unlawful by the courts in the Dillon case in Belfast. The High Court and the Court of Appeal were clear that those provisions breached articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights and the Windsor framework. The Government accepted that judgment and rightly abandoned their appeal. Those immunity provisions never legally took effect, and it is right that they are now formally removed.
The order also restores access to civil claims, reopening an important route to truth and accountability that had been wrongly closed. These processes were never about witch hunts. Since the Good Friday agreement, only one former soldier has been convicted for a troubles-era killing, and he received a suspended sentence. That is not lawfare. What civil cases and inquests have done is to correct false records, expose wrongdoing and finally give families truthful answers after decades of official denial.
However, we must honest. The remedial order does not go far enough. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which blocks the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from investigating troubles-related police misconduct, remains unaddressed. The Court of Appeal found that to be incompatible with human rights, yet victims and families are still denied access to a fully independent investigative mechanism. That failure continues.
The Government are, of course, serious about a victim-centred approach to the past, and in pursuit of that further amendments are essential. National security must not be used as a smokescreen for secrecy. Families must have enforceable rights to truth, information and challenge, particularly when the Secretary of State retains wide powers over legacy bodies. That is especially important given the unresolved disagreements surrounding the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Lincoln Jopp
I am new in this place, but my sense of the hon. Member is that he a great parliamentarian, so I would like to understand how he has reconciled himself with this being the correct course for the Government to take—bringing in a remedial order that pulls a law out before we put a new one in?
Andy McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. There is an obligation on the Government under section 4 of the Human Rights Act: where they have been told by a court that legislation is incompatible with a convention right, they are duty-bound to remove that incompatibility. That is exactly what is being done here. [Interruption.] The hon. Member chunters from a sedentary position, but that is the legal position.
The remedial order is a positive correction, but it is only a first step. Justice delayed has already cost families decades. Justice diluted will cost confidence altogether. If we want reconciliation rooted in truth, the law must apply equally to all, and independent investigations must be fully restored.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I have listened carefully to those who have spoken before me, and while there are clear differences across the House, I hope there is a shared recognition of the gravity of the issues we are debating and the responsibility that rests on Parliament to approach them with care.
I will begin, as I have done previously in debates on this matter, by recognising the deep and enduring scars left by the troubles. For victims, survivors, veterans, families and communities across Northern Ireland and beyond, the issues we are considering reflect lived experience and demand seriousness and humility, not grandstanding. That does not preclude our making clear that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a failure—in fact, it requires it. It failed victims, it failed survivors and it failed veterans. That is not just the opinion of the Liberal Democrats; it is the view of every major party in Northern Ireland, as well as victims’ organisations, the vast majority of veterans I have met and, ultimately, the courts.
The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear in 2024 that core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Parliament cannot simply shrug its shoulders at that judgment, and there is no more apposite time than now to confirm that we are a country governed by the rule of law, not by wishful thinking or culture war rhetoric.
For that reason, the Liberal Democrats welcome the remedial order, and I remind the House that there is a greater percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party than in any other party in this House. Our gallant cohort would agree to nothing that will let down our veterans and believes that the remedial order is necessary because it removes the most egregious provisions of the Act, including immunity that extended to terrorists and bars on civil actions. Those measures were corrosive to trust and created an abhorrent moral equivalence between those who served the state and those who sought to destroy it. The remedial order must consequently be seen as a prerequisite to any credible legacy process, not as a concession to apologists and terrorists.
That is why it is difficult to understand those who argue that the House should vote against the remedial order. To do so would be to defend legislation that the courts have ruled to be unlawful and to prolong uncertainty for victims and veterans alike. It would leave us knowingly in breach of our international obligations and would further undermine confidence in the institutions tasked with dealing with the past. It is simply wrong, both in principle and in practice. To those who argue that the remedial order should be delayed until the judgment in the Dillon case is handed down, I would simply say that I concur with the Secretary of State. Put simply, notwithstanding paragraph 710 of the Court of Appeal judgment, the declaration of incompatibility will remain whether or not the Government win their appeal on article 2 of the Windsor framework.
Although the Secretary of State will doubtless welcome our support, I do not wish to lull him into a false sense of security. We welcome the remedial order, but that does not mean that we are declaring the job done. Serious deficiencies in the forthcoming Northern Ireland Troubles Bill remain, and they must be addressed if any new framework is to command confidence across communities. That is why my party has tabled constructive amendments and new clauses—not to wreck the legislation, but to save it.
In particular, we remain deeply concerned about protections for veterans. Veterans are not asking for immunity; they tell me repeatedly that they do not want immunity. They are asking for fairness, proportionality and an end to the fear that the process of investigation becomes an instrument of persecution.
Lincoln Jopp
I fear that the Liberal Democrat spokesman may have misspoken earlier in his remarks. I will quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the first draft:
“A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.”
Mr Kohler
Yes, in other words, it is for our Government to stand up for our international obligations. Hon. Members should look about them; look at what is happening at the moment with Greenland. This is the time when we should stand up for our international obligations. It is a time for us to believe in the rule of law. There is a declaration of incompatibility and our Government should absolutely stand up for our international obligations.
David Davis
The point that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made relates directly back to the Human Rights Act, which is the law in this country.
Mr Kohler
The Government have a choice to make: whether to stand up for our international obligations. That is the right thing to do. At this time, of all times, surely we should stand up for our international obligations.
Our amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seek to put clear statutory definitions in place to strengthen safeguards against disproportionate legal action, to provide a presumption of remote participation, to protect anonymity and to establish independent oversight of how those safeguards operate in practice. Our approach is about recognising service, context and the cumulative impact of decades of investigation, not about shielding wrongdoing.
The Liberal Democrats also recognise that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legal mechanisms alone.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have seen a pattern forming. I hope the hon. Member did not misquote when he said that the Liberal Democrats have more veterans in their parliamentary party than anyone else, when they have eight and we have 17. I see that only one of theirs is here today, whereas many of ours are here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please sit down, Mr Kohler. The temperature needs to be lowered to allow the hon. Gentleman to deliver his remarks.
Mr Kohler
If we are serious about moving towards a shared and stable future for Northern Ireland, legacy processes must be connected to a broader reconciliation strategy. That is why we propose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish such a strategy, developed in consultation with victims, institutions and Parliament. Addressing the past and building the future must go hand in hand.
Finally, a word about the European convention on human rights. The remedial order arises precisely because ECHR compliance matters. The Good Friday agreement is built on it and, as such, peace in Northern Ireland depends on it. Those who casually call for withdrawal are playing fast and loose with our history, our rights, our futures and our very Union. We will support this remedial order, oppose those who would block it for self-serving reasons and continue to work constructively with Members from across the House to fashion an appropriate legacy process.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I felt that it was important that I speak today as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We had another member of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), in the Chamber until recently. When he came over to speak to me just now, I was slightly worried that he was defecting. However, I was assured that he was just letting me know that, unfortunately, he was not able to stay for the rest of the debate.
I want to start by acknowledging that there were differences of opinion on this important issue. Nevertheless, the Committee carried out its constitutional role to scrutinise this remedial order, as the Standing Orders of both Houses set out we must. As it was mandated to do, the JCHR has produced two reports on this remedial order, and it has been clear and unambiguous in its recommendation that it be approved by the House. I should emphasise that the focus of the reports was on the remedial order in front of us today, not on the Bill. I, similarly, will focus my remarks squarely on the order.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out, this remedial order follows rulings by the High Court of Northern Ireland and the Court of Appeal that declared a number of provisions within the previous Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible with our human rights obligations under the European convention on human rights.
The legacy Act prohibited any criminal investigations into troubles-related offences from being initiated or continued. It also prohibited any criminal enforcement action in relation to non-serious troubles-related offences. It ended troubles-related civil claims that began after the legacy Act’s First Reading, and prohibited new ones. It also obliged the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to give immunity from prosecution where certain conditions were met—and yes, this extended to giving immunity from prosecution to terrorists.
The legacy Act was a deeply flawed piece of legislation, a fact that has been reflected in the courts’ rulings on its incompatibilities with our human rights legislation. This order, alongside the Bill, seeks to remedy those incompatibilities.
Lincoln Jopp
As the hon. Member says, we are considering this order alongside the Bill. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which he sits, for producing this very good report, but I would like to try to get an answer that I did not get earlier. How is he reconciled with the fact that this remedial order is being used as a guillotine to gut an existing piece of legislation before his Government have put something else in place?
Peter Swallow
I am happy to jump forward in my speech to address the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I would just gently say that, by removing the incompatibilities, which the courts have put in legal limbo, this Government are quite rightly acting to correct those incompatibilities. That is good governance, not bad. Let me address his point more specifically. To say that it is unusual for any Government to introduce a remedial order and a Bill, both addressing incompatibilities, on the same day would be an understatement. Indeed, the Committee’s long-held view is that primary legislation is always preferable to address incompatibilities, where that is available—a view re-emphasised in our second report. But, importantly, we also recognise the unique complexities and sensitivities of this issue, and for that reason our recommendation was that this remedial order should be approved.
I acknowledge that this is an unusual remedial order, in that it is being presented at the same time as the Bill, as I have said. I welcome the Bill before the House as well. Unlike the legacy Act introduced by the previous Government, this Bill does not give immunity to terrorists. It recognises the rights of communities to access the justice that our legal framework affords to all. It also produces important safeguards for veterans, including protection from repeated investigations, the right to seek anonymity, the right not to be forced to travel to give evidence, protection in old age and protection from cold calling or unexpected letters.
Importantly, these safeguards include a right for veterans’ voices to be heard through the inclusion of veterans’ representatives in the statutory victims and survivors advisory group. These measures strike the balance between protecting those who served to keep the peace and protect life, and ensuring that terrorist acts are not granted immunity.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member is describing the Bill, but we are not here to debate the Bill; we are here to debate the remedial order. I asked him why he was comfortable with the fact that the Government are guillotining a piece of law without putting something else in place, and he has not answered that yet. He has answered that they can, but he has not told us why they should.
Peter Swallow
As the report sets out, the Government set forward their reasons for proceeding with the remedial order alongside a Bill, and the Secretary of State has shared those reasons today. It always behoves a Government, where an incompatibility has been identified, to choose the manner in which to address it. There are four options. The first option is to do nothing, which we very well could have done. However, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), eloquently pointed out, that would see us failing to comply with our international obligations, which I would not be comfortable with. The second option would be to introduce a remedial order that had to be approved urgently. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will forgive me if I do not remember the precise language while on my feet, but there is a route for a more rapid remedial order. That is not the route the Government decided to go down, and I welcome that as well, because it is important that we have the time to properly scrutinise anything on this most sensitive issue. The third option is the one that the Government have taken. The fourth option, of course, is to deal with it solely in primary legislation.
As the Secretary of State set out—he was very forthcoming in appearing before the Committee and providing additional correspondence to us—the decision he took was that the appropriate route was to address this with a remedial order. He did that because it was important to build trust in communities across Northern Ireland by more swiftly addressing the incompatibilities that have been identified. I hope that my fulsome response has addressed the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and that I can continue with my speech. [Interruption.] Fantastic. Thank you.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that he recognises that this is a sensitive Bill which seeks to address not only the lasting legacy of a highly emotive and contested period of our history, but the enduring lived reality of what that legacy means for communities across Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK. For that reason, the Government have set out their grounds for seeking to use a remedial order. I referred to that in great detail.
I also emphasise that, given the nature of the Bill before the House, the legislation will take some time to progress as it is scrutinised by both Houses and, indeed, our Committee. [Interruption.] As you indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is more than enough from me in setting out the reasons why the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that this remedial order be approved. I end by emphasising that, as a member of the JCHR, I stand by our reports, and our considered recommendation to approve is clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen the interest in the debate shown by the number of Members on their feet and will be aware of the short time available. I do not want to bring in a time limit at this moment, but I ask Members to keep their comments as brief as possible in order to help each other out.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I suppose I should declare an interest: I was the only person, other than Tom Watson, to have had an Act of Parliament struck down in the courts—not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on—so I am quite familiar with that process, and this is not it. I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for taking part in the JCHR—it is an incredibly important Committee. I will say to him that, throughout its history, the Committee has mostly had unanimous judgments. Certainly under Harriet Harman, for example, who was a brilliant chairman, the judgments were almost entirely unanimous; they were never on a party basis.
To make the Opposition side of the House happy, I will start by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act requires “compelling reasons” to bring forward a remedial order, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is a “general constitutional principle” that
“it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a Bill”,
not by a remedial order.
Although the JCHR allowed the progress of the remedial order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote—not the usual unanimity—and with it stating:
“It is…highly unusual that the Government has laid a Bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually…we would consider the Government’s approach constitutionally improper.”
I agree, and I encourage colleagues to read this report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did earlier, because we can almost see the Committee’s discomfort.
What happened is that the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency of the matter, in his mind. The hon. Member for Bracknell just referred to it as “unique” in its complexity. That is precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a parliamentary technique that allows no amendment whatsoever. My arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to our report to advance his argument. Would he be so kind as to read the next sentence?
David Davis
I encourage everybody to read it. I am not saying that people should take my word for it; I am saying that they should read this report, because we can see the tension in the Committee.
Of course, as the Secretary of State said, there are a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he is aiming to help. But he started by talking about the huge number of people who were killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I warrant that when this order goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who were killed by paramilitaries and those who are asking for information.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?
David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other.
I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court.
I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim.
When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate.
But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a classic example of what he is saying was the Shankill bomb? The perpetrator of that bomb was an IRA terrorist. He was killed along with the innocent people whom he murdered, yet Sinn Féin and republicans insist on trying to portray him as a victim, as opposed to those who he genuinely caused to be victims.
David Davis
That is part of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. This goes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done. We know that he has promised Mairead Kelly that there will be a coroner’s inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed at Loughgall. He was a victim, except he had killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers. He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up—well, they were not attempting; they did blow up the police station, with soldiers and policemen inside. It was a 400 lb bomb, and they had heavy weapons, G36s—my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise them—to shoot through the walls and kill policemen. If we want to see the rewriting of history, Kelly’s family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that at Loughgall he
“went out to blow up, not to kill”,
despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise. He obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people.
I do not aim to make light of this, because it is incredibly serious. As with the 120 cases already mentioned, Kelly’s family have already brought legal action against the Ministry of Defence. They are not the only ones, so let us look at other IRA terrorist “victims” who have brought civil cases. In 2011, Aidan McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 for injuries sustained when fleeing the scene. He is not a victim; he is a terrorist, and he got £75,000. The IRA tried to pretend that it was a killing operation, but the SAS, or the soldiers on the scene—whoever they were—actually gave him first aid to save his life because he had been shot and injured, yet he gets £75,000 from the state. In 2023, the family of Stan Carberry tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry, an IRA volunteer, was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
David Davis
Forgive me but I will not, as I want to get to the end of this. As we know, Gerry Adams is already preparing legal action, challenging the decision to prevent him and others from being compensated for being interned during the troubles.
The surviving IRA terrorists and their families will benefit from what we are doing today. There will be some civil claims brought against IRA killers—the Secretary of State mentioned some of them—but they will be rather special circumstances. Omagh is one of those; I could explain why, but we do not have the time. There will be a few of those, but very few compared with thousands of deaths, tortures and murders. That is largely because Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell accepted, as part of the Good Friday agreement, not to allow decommissioned weapons to be studied for forensic purposes. They also precluded recovered bodies from being examined for forensic purposes. The families of people who have been murdered, where the body has been recovered, are not even allowed to use the bullets in them to see who killed them. That is how this justice works. And, of course, there will be no witnesses to the IRA crimes. The IRA themselves will not give witness, and I am afraid that anybody else will be taking their life in their hands.
I will finish by saying this: today’s remedial order will allow the IRA to further its campaign of rewriting the history of the troubles, portraying our brave soldiers as state-sponsored killers, and falsely representing themselves as victims and heroes, neither of which is true.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I am happy to speak in support of the motion as set out on the Order Paper.
The wider context is straightforward: the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passed by the Conservatives attempted to replace long-standing legal routes with a new commission, ICRIR, and a conditional immunity scheme. However, that approach did not command support in Northern Ireland and it did not withstand legal scrutiny. Both the High Court and the Belfast Court of Appeal found key provisions in the Act were incompatible with UK human rights law, in particular where they undermined the state’s duties to investigate serious harm and where the Act shut victims, including the victims of terrorist attacks, out of court. This was entirely foreseeable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in 2022, when there was a majority of Conservative politicians on that Committee, that the Government’s approach risked
“widespread breaches of human rights law”
and would fail
“to meet the minimum standards required to ensure effective investigations.”
Victims of the troubles and their families, including British servicemen killed by terrorists, would have had their routes to justice shut down by the Conservative’s unlawful legacy Act. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead regardless, passing an Act that they knew would never be compatible with UK law, and therefore would never commence. False promises were made to our veterans and negligence was dressed up as decisiveness. So it is right that the Labour Government have committed to repeal and replace the previous Government’s failed Act through primary legislation, but today is about a necessary interim step: the remedial order before the House.
The remedial order will fix human rights breaches quickly, when the courts have found that Parliament’s work has cut across basic protections. What does it do? First, it removes the Act’s conditional immunity provisions—the quite outrageous provisions that allowed terrorists to secure immunity from prosecution by offering an account
“to the best of their knowledge and belief”.
Those provisions were never enacted as they were struck down by the courts, but their presence on the statute book has done real damage. It has fuelled mistrust, created uncertainty and offered a false promise of protection to veterans that could never be delivered.
Secondly, the remedial order removes the statutory bar on troubles-related civil claims. The 2023 Act sought to block citizens of the United Kingdom from pursuing justice for crimes that they faced during the troubles. I believe that was wrong in principle, and indeed it was found to be incompatible with article 6 of the convention.
Thirdly, it removes the exclusion of protected material gathered by ICRIR from being used in civil proceedings and certain other processes. In plain English, that stops victims who would have had their hands tied by the law from using evidence they would need to seek justice.
Much of the Opposition’s rhetoric has been directed at veterans, so as a veteran myself, let me address that head on. There never has been and never will be any moral equivalence between our armed forces, who served to uphold law and order, and terrorist organisations that targeted civilians.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He has glossed over another thing that he will potentially be voting for today: allowing Gerry Adams to claim compensation on the basis that his internment was illegal because the Minister of State signed the order not the Secretary of State. Would he like to tell his veteran friends and the people of Halesowen why he is happy to walk through the Lobby to vote to give Gerry Adams that right?
Alex Ballinger
I am grateful to have the opportunity to gently correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When asked that question a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said categorically that we would not allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation. There are several civil cases that would be blocked, supporting the victims of IRA terrorism, including a case involving Gerry Adams, and this remedial order will help going forward. It is important that we think about the victims of those appalling terrorist paramilitary crimes.
Dr Murrison
I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. He is right to assert that there is no moral equivalence and there should be no legal equivalence between the perpetrators of terror and those sent out to do the state’s business in Northern Ireland. But can he understand the views of the great majority of veterans, many of whom I have the privilege to represent, who feel that what this Government are doing is undermining and holing below the water line legislation that, however imperfect and subject to appeal, was going some way towards giving them some comfort?
Alex Ballinger
I am a veteran, and I speak to many veterans, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are range of views on the issue. Those of us who served, in whichever service, did so to uphold the rule of law. It is beholden on us and those who served that if they are upholding the rule of law, they are accountable to that rule of law. Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said:
“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”
This is not happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Northern Ireland, where UK citizens are affected, so rule of law is vital.
Peter Swallow
Let me briefly recognise the point that my hon. Friend has just made. We cannot have immunity for one group and not another. The previous Government recognised that position—it was recognised in their Act—which is why their Act gave immunity to terrorists. Is that not the case?
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend is right. It is important for everyone involved, including the many veterans concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, that we end this legal wild west. The defective Act that led to more litigation, uncertainty and distress for victims and those who served on Op Banner should end.
Alex Ballinger
I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.
Sammy Wilson
It is not about the rule of law. This is about the terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles on an industrial scale, using the fact that the Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, and they have none. This is therefore a one-sided operation.
Alex Ballinger
I do not have the statistics in front of me, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that the overwhelming number of prosecutions that have happened in Northern Ireland have been of paramilitaries and terrorist groups. Only one serviceperson has been convicted since 2010, and that was on a suspended sentence. I am afraid that the threat is exaggerated for political effect by our opponents, which is not helpful in a very serious business that people are very concerned about.
It is important that we deal in facts, not scare stories. Claims that 800 civil cases will be reactivated and that this measure will drag veterans through the courts again are simply untrue. The reality is that almost 800 civil cases continued unaffected by the Conservatives’ 2023 legacy Act, as it was aimed at new claims. However, as the Act was rejected by the courts, it never provided any protection to veterans. We will go on to protections for veterans as part of Labour’s new Bill—I will not cover that now, because we will have another opportunity to do so.
This remedial order is a necessary correction. It removes discredited provisions, restores basic legal rights and helps to rebuild confidence in a process that must command legitimacy across Northern Ireland, and I will support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members may wish to know that I will shortly bring in a three-minute time limit. Without a time limit, I call Gavin Robinson.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On a point of agreement and positivity, may I thank the Leader of the House and the usual channels for agreeing that this motion should have three hours of debate? Had it arrested at 90 minutes, no Northern Ireland voice would have been heard in this debate at all, which would be shameful.
Thank you for the indication that you will bring in a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of my opportunity to speak without a time limit, because I will not be discourteous to Northern Ireland colleagues or any others who wish to participate.
The Secretary of State knows my position on this matter. I believe that he is bringing in this remedial order wrongly, and he is attaching a level of undue haste to these issues. I said to him on 17 December in this Chamber that, given that he knows that issues are still before the Supreme Court, he should at least wait. Although he has abandoned the appeal, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has not. This Government have tried to indicate their support for and understanding of the concerns of veterans—the previous speaker made a valiant effort—yet we have veterans waiting on the challenge that they lodged in the Supreme Court, and the Government cannot wait until these issues have been determined.
I say again to the Secretary of State that remedial orders are there to deal with an incompatibility with human rights law, not his policy objectives, yet that is exactly what I believe he is doing in this regard. If I am wrong, surely it is incumbent on him to use this mechanism to deal with all the incompatibilities that were highlighted by the courts. The High Court in Belfast highlighted a number, yet he left one out. The Court of Appeal added three more, yet he only added one to this remedial order. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has indicated that the remedial order should be approved, but has offered absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that have been left out of the order. But I am going to raise them.
Civil cases were mentioned earlier. The Secretary of State has not explained why the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal were in two fundamentally different places on civil cases, nor did he take the opportunity to pursue that differential and get a determined outcome in the Supreme Court. He has not indicated why he believes the High Court in Belfast thought that retrospective application was wrong and yet the Court of Appeal allowed civil cases to be lodged indefinitely and in perpetuity. When I intervened on him, he posed a question to me about the principle of bringing civil cases. I agree with that principle, but it is not uncommon for the law to understand limitations, including through our limitations legislation. We need to understand that it is part of the sovereignty of this Parliament to be able to say, “Enough is enough. Time has moved on. You have exhausted your opportunity for a claim.” We know, as do veterans, the security services and the PSNI, about the unlimited quest through legal aid and lawfare to rewrite the past—to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland and to turn that which was bad into good—and we will always speak out against that.
The Secretary of State has chosen to leave the interim custody order issue out of his remedial order and attempt to deal with that issue in the troubles Bill, but clauses 89 and 90 of that Bill will not deal with Gerry Adams. Lord Kerr’s judgment—probably his final judgment before he retired from the Supreme Court and before his sad demise—indicates that that which the Secretary of State intends to introduce through clause 89 does not stand legally. Clause 90 deals with convictions that were quashed and remain quashed, but for which there can be no compensation. It is silent on whether Gerry Adams would be able to obtain compensation, not for the quashed conviction, but from the fact that he was detained without trial under an interim custody order in the first place. The Secretary of State has been deficient in what he has provided this House with. He has not chosen to deal with the incompatibility through this remedial order, nor do I believe he has dealt with it sufficiently through the path he has taken on primary legislation.
Returning to the issue of civil cases, the Secretary of State lectures Northern Ireland continually about living within our budget—within our means—but he is expanding the scope of legacy investigations and the legacy commission exponentially through this remedial order and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Has he suggested for one moment that he is going to increase the budget available to the legacy commission? No. It has been given £250 million over five years. Almost £100 million has already been spent. Is he going to pick up the tab for this raft of work that is going to befall us in Northern Ireland? No.
The decisions being made in this Chamber now, and those that will be made in future regarding the troubles Bill, have a material impact on our ability to move on to the future rather than deal with the past, yet I hear no concern for that. I see that 800-odd civil claims will now be accompanied by an additional 200 claims. Who is to pick up the bill, Secretary of State? If it is the people of Northern Ireland—the people who were troubled for 30 years by terrorists—and the fledgling Executive, who are struggling to make public services deliver for their people because of these issues, then that is something I have a responsibility to raise, and it is something the Secretary of State needs to wrestle with and deal with.
Most fundamentally of all, it has been suggested that this process was to provide a quick resolution to an issue raised by the courts. We are now some 18 months on from a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, yet what do we hear? We hear that this Government are locked in a logjam between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence about the substance of amendments that may or may not be tabled.
Two weeks ago, the Government were maintaining the position that the safeguards in the Bill, which they call protections, were sufficient. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister accepted with me that those were insufficient and that he was going to have to bring forward amendments. That was shut down by a representative of the Irish Government some two hours later, who said that the Secretary of State has no power to bring forward any amendments unless he attains their agreement. Shame, I say. [Interruption.] It is a matter of fact that that was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, and the Secretary of State well knows it. We will attest, and we will see the amendments that he brings forward.
I seriously and personally regret that we are in a position that we cannot offer our support to this remedial order. I asked the Secretary of State on 17 December to wait, as the hearings concluded in October and the Supreme Court will issue a determination. He would be in a much stronger space to build credibility and confidence on these issues, if he at least allowed the judicial process to conclude, but he chose not to—and with that, he loses our support.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Social Democratic and Labour party welcomes this remedial order, which goes some way to restoring the rule of law to legacy processes and in turn to the present day. The introduction by the previous Government of an amnesty and the closure of processes was the very definition of the phrase, “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
This order is specifically about the troubles legacy Bill, but across these islands—in every jurisdiction, every day—we can see evidence of cases where wrongs were not properly addressed at the time. We now see the hurt and the damage compounded by delay, whether it is Hillsborough, infected blood, the Post Office scandal or the Magdalene laundries. There will not be a Member of this House who cannot speak to an experience in their own constituency. My ask is simply that Members think about my constituents and people across Northern Ireland in the same way.
It is not about who won. I have to bite my tongue quite a lot in this House, and particularly today. The people who are waiting to access some of these processes—none of them have won. All of them have lost members of their family. It is not about people being able to draw a line under the past because MPs in London have told them to. MPs have called them IRA sympathisers.
The previous legislation, which this order undoes, was not about reconciliation or truth. The word “reconciliation” appeared in the title of the Bill and nowhere else. The Bill was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries would again have their crimes retrospectively legalised. It was not just a free pass for paramilitaries, and I am not here to write a reference for any of them. Tens of thousands of them did at least go through the justice system, but these provisions and amnesties extended to the darkest corners—yes, of the security services, but also to those who directed the terrorism and who played God with people’s lives, and who should of course be held to the law.
The Conservatives justified their approach with the fiction that nothing is working, but inquests have worked. They were belated, yes, because there was a failure to address the crimes at the time or to fund the system. Those inquests have been complex and expensive, but that is because of the layers of veto and information suppression that have been applied by those with the most to hide. Those inquiries have also exposed truth and corrected false narratives. I think of the Ballymurphy families; the Parachute Regiment, just five months before they went on to kill in Bloody Sunday, opened fire on innocent civilians, falsely labelling them as armed threats. The 2021 inquest freed those families—freed people who had grown up with a lifetime of being told that their mother, their father or their parish priest was a gunman, when it was entirely obvious that that was not true. They finally got accountability from a regiment that operated without it.
False narratives have been used by the security forces, by the IRA and by republican and loyalist terrorists to impugn and to add grievous insult to injury for so many victims. I also think of the Kingsmill massacre; an inquest less than two years ago rightly concluded that that was a sectarian attack, where 10 Protestant workmen were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing by the IRA. That was carried out by people who claimed the legacy of James Connolly while shooting dead the very people who he would have stood alongside. When people say that it is IRA sympathisers who benefit from these inquests, it is such an insult to decent and non-sectarian people like Alan Black.
I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme. We have had the Good Friday agreement and the bitter pills to swallow in that, and Eames-Bradley and Haass-O’Sullivan and the on-the-run letters, and all the other processes that have put the needs of victim makers ahead of victims. This legislation turns that around. However, it is just the beginning: we have to get the processes right if we are to escape the shackles of the past and create a space that is for truth, accountability and remembrance. This has to be rooted in the future as much as it is in the past, but also in human rights compliance, truth and justice. Today I again urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, where concerns exist about disclosure, ECHR compatibility and judicial independence, to ensure that we face down those vested interests, in or out of uniform, and show Britain as a democracy that upholds laws and rights.
Dealing with legacy will not be confined to the remedial order, the troubles Bill or the joint framework. As Members on both sides of the House know, it shapes our politics, our policing, how communities relate to each other, and how we can best deliver a shared future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. The answers will not all be found in this order, or in the legislation that is to come. We have never needed a complex legal process for people to acknowledge what they did: for the IRA to acknowledge that they used human lives, nearly 2,000 of them, as collateral damage; for loyalists to acknowledge that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the UK security forces to acknowledge that their soldiers did not always uphold the law.
I can stand here and acknowledge that so many did serve decently—did try to serve decently. I can stand here and acknowledge the pride that many Members feel in the service given by them and by their loved ones. However, I hope that others can acknowledge that that was not the experience that everyone in Northern Ireland had. Three hundred thousand soldiers served in Operation Banner, and fewer than two dozen of them have ever faced judicial proceedings. We have wasted a lot of the time of victims’ families, and we have wasted money as well. It is time to move forward. The Bill is the start of that, and I ask Members to approach it in that framework and with respect for the dignity of all the people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. If Members limit their interventions, we can start with a four-minute time limit.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the limited time available, I shall try to address a few of the basic issues, including those on which I intervened earlier.
It became fairly obvious towards the end of the Secretary of State’s remarks, as a result of questioning from my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, that although there was much in his speech suggesting that he had to do what he is doing today, he is really doing it because he wants to do it. It was in the Government’s manifesto that they were going to repeal the legislation, and he is seizing the chance to strike it down at the first possible opportunity.
Sometimes one gets into a position of almost wondering about the futility of entering into a debate. Forty years ago, I used to debate against the same people again and again over the question of whether Britain should one-sidedly give up its nuclear weapons. I would often put forward an argument that countered something that they had said, they would have no answer to it, and then I would go into the next debate and they would say exactly the same thing over and over again, and I would have to put forward the same argument, and no one was getting anywhere. I feel like that over this point about the supposed equating of service personnel with IRA and other paramilitary terrorists. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said, “There is no moral equivalence between these people.” Nobody in this debate is saying that there is any moral equivalence between these people. What we are saying is that everybody is equal before the law.
Let me remind the House what I said in Westminster Hall on 14 July last year—six months ago to the day last week—during a debate covering all these subjects. I pointed out that in April 2017 the Defence Committee had published a report, on a consensus and cross-party basis, entitled “Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel”—(HC1064).
In the inquiries that led up to the publication of that report, we took evidence on 7 March 2017 from four professors of law: Philippe Sands of University College London, Peter Rowe of Lancaster University, Kieran McEvoy of Queen’s University Belfast and Richard Ekins of Oxford University. All of those professors agreed that it was possible and legal—regardless of whether they wanted to do it or not—to have a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery mechanism. That is what the legacy Act, which is now being struck down, brought into effect.
The legacy Act has a very good chance of surviving further legal scrutiny. It is no argument to say that it has been discredited just because the Government and their supporters do not like it. The truth of the matter is that we have to give immunity to everyone or to no one. If the price of giving immunity to our servicemen is that we give it to terrorists too, then it is a price worth paying.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Today I am going to try to speak as freely as I can about something in which I believe passionately. I will explain why I believe in the principles that underpin the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is why I consider it necessary that we keep working on the specifics during its next phase in Parliament. I will try to explain some of the complexity and emotion, and why I find it despicable that some Members, on both sides of the Chamber, seek to gain political advantage from it. It is for this reason that I will be circumspect about accepting interventions.
I love this country. I am proudly British, and I am prepared to fight and die for the protection of the principles and fundamentals that define this country, the most important of which is the rule of law and the principle that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. These principles and fundamentals have been hard won, most recently during our deconstruction of our post-imperial self from 1945 to the late 1970s and early ’80s. I suggest that some people should reflect on that, because it was a time when our behaviour overseas, and the way that we behaved in places where we had sovereignty and where our legal situation was distinct from the law as exercised at home in the UK, was different.
That is important, because when the UK faced an internal crisis that was similar to the crises that it sought to manage elsewhere, it used military support to the civil authority to address it. In my opinion, it should have declared a state of emergency. Under such a state, the Government can enact powers that they are unable to enact during peacetime, the most important and pertinent of which is the ability to deploy their own military on their own streets in the protection of their own civilians. The issuance of such orders brings with it clear and defined parameters, under which those acting in the supplementary capacity of the police have the right and authority to use legal force on behalf of the state in an attempt to save lives.
That never happened. Instead, it was done through emergency legislation and security powers. What never happened was the creation of a coherent, unified legal framework that was equivalent to that of civilian policing. It is for this reason that those asked to act on behalf of the state have been left in turmoil, because the state inadequately defined the parameters under which its servants would act, and the protections and responsibilities that the state would provide for those actors if they acted in line with the law and the derivations provided to support them in the troubles.
Immunity from prosecution is not something that we are being asked to provide for our police officers. At no point have I heard those arguing for the maintenance of the failed legacy Act say that the police officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be given similar immunity, because the context in which they were asked to act was known and the parameters for doing so were clearly defined. For our soldiers acting as police officers, the parameters were not clearly defined.
I was going to share some of my experiences as a military person and some of the things that have shaped my view of the world, but what I would say—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has reached the time limit.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate Members who have spoken, particularly the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). He set out eloquently, in precise and excellent detail, exactly what is wrong with what is happening today and what will be wrong when the Government next bring forward their Bill. I still do not understand the reason for the rush to get the order through today. We have legislation coming before us, and surely it would have been reasonable to allow the courts to get on with their business and for us to legislate on the basis of what they bring forward. I simply say to the Government that it is badly done that we are rushing this order through and that the House is being forced to vote on it today.
The points I want to make are not about the legalities of this, because those have been raked over endlessly. As I said, the right hon. Member for Belfast East gave a brilliant exposition of them, and there is nothing I can add. I want to talk simply about what the previous Government were trying to do when they brought in the previous legislation. Back in about 1993 or 1994, I went out to South Africa with a delegation to look at how people there were trying to bring the country together again and clear themselves of the baggage of what had happened over those desperate years. During that time, many more men and women were killed in South Africa then we are dealing with in Northern Ireland, tragic though that was. It was the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa that persuaded me that something along those lines was vital for Northern Ireland.
I say that as somebody who served in Northern Ireland. I also say it as one of those who lost a good friend, whose name I have mentioned before—Captain Robert Nairac. The main point I am making is that I no longer wish to pursue the people involved. His parents have died, and the rest of the family do not want to pursue those people for justice; they want to find out what happened to Bob Nairac. Nobody knows, and no one will come forward with the possibility of prosecution hanging over their head. What happened was terrible, but we want to know what it was. That is the bit I feel strongly about: the knowing is important to end this and draw a line under it. I am afraid that the Bill will continue the pursuit of individuals, particularly those who are Northern Ireland veterans, as I am.
There is no help here in respect of Ireland and its pursuit. What are we going to do? There is nothing to say that Ireland will now agree to drop what it is doing and open its records. So much of what happened is in its records, because people fled there from their brutal crimes.
This is not about equivalence, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). As have I said before, equivalence came about when a limitation was put on incarceration periods back in 1998. That brought equivalence to terrorism and to terrorists. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who is not in his place, made the point that the vast majority of prosecutions have been of terrorists, but over 3,000 of the deaths were down to terrorists and only about 300 had anything to do with the armed forces. So of course there have so far been more prosecutions of terrorists, but there will never be enough while we cannot get the records—they do not exist—of those who committed these foul acts. I again make the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East that it is a one-way street.
Time is limited, so I will finish simply by saying that I remember a conversation with Norman Tebbit, who died quite recently, during which I asked what was the worst thing that had happened to him. He said that it was not lying under the rubble or even believing that his wife had died as she lay next to him after the bombing. He said that the worst thing was when he had to swallow hard and watch the person who had set the bomb and blown his wife into a different future walk free. He said that that was the worst thing, but he understood why it was necessary. He swallowed it and determined against a prosecution. I was hoping that with the previous legislation, we could get to the truth of things, rather than have this ridiculous pursuit, which will never end, of those gallant veterans who, like me, served in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
This remedial order is just another step by this Government towards repealing and overriding the previous Government’s legacy Act. This Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer—who has, in the past, represented Gerry Adams—claim that the 2023 legacy Act is contrary to the European convention on human rights. There again, we have the ECHR wrongly being allowed to interfere in our justice system.
The legacy Act put a stop to lawfare. Although not perfect, it was a step in the right direction as it outlawed lawfare against veterans. However, it also prevented legal action against and the prosecution of terrorists. The Government want to reopen inquiries, leading to the return of years of misery and stress for, and the persecution of, our brave veterans in their retirement years, after they served this country so loyally during the troubles. In the meantime, on-the-run letters of comfort remain in place for IRA terrorists—letters sent by Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Adviser. The return of civil suits will lead to the return of slow justice and a cost of millions more to the taxpayer
This legislation will serve no purpose other than to pursue our brave veterans. This legislation is unfair and against their human rights. I will not vote in favour of the remedial order today.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I rise as a proud Unionist from Northern Ireland, and as somebody who stands four-square with our veterans, innocent victims and their families. I have deep concerns about the remedial order and how this is going to operate. From the perspective of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland, the entire legacy framework is nothing short of deeply worrying. These are men and women, many of whom are now in their 70s and 80s, who put on the uniform of this country and operated under orders, rules, the law and unimaginable pressure to hold the line between democracy and terrorism.
What is the message that we are sending today? “Welcome to Labour’s Northern Ireland, where republicans run around with letters of comfort in their pockets while innocent soldiers like soldier F are hounded through the courts.” We are told that this order is about remedying and fixing deficiencies in the 2023 Act. It does nothing of the kind. The central obscenity remains: the effective closing down of routes to meaningful justice for hundreds of innocent families, while leaving entirely intact the pattern by which the vast majority of new investigatory energy is directed at former members of the security forces.
Let us be absolutely clear: our veterans did not start the troubles. They did not choose the battleground. They were sent by this Parliament to defend the rule of law, to protect both communities and to uphold the very democracy that allows some in this Chamber to denounce them today. To watch, in 2026, as the state bends over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of those who waged war against it, while putting elderly veterans back in the dock for split-second decisions made in the fog of conflict half a century ago, is to witness a profound moral failure.
For the victims of terrorism, whether Protestant, Catholic or neither, this framework still closes doors. It still moves them from a justice-based system to a process-based system, and from the possibility of accountability to the inevitability of managed disappointment. They are told to accept truth recovery with no guarantee of truth, reconciliation with no guarantee of remorse, and closure with no guarantee of justice.
For veterans, it is even worse. They see those who tried to murder them, or who murdered their comrades, sitting in government or appearing on TV, their pasts laundered and legitimised. At the same time, they see files reopened against them, headlines splashed against them, and their last years overshadowed by legal and political warfare. That is not equal treatment, or a “balanced” approach to the past; it is a calculated political accommodation with republicanism, paid for with the peace of mind of those who served this country.
I say this directly to Ministers: if they will not stand with the men and women who defended this kingdom, do not be surprised when they conclude that this kingdom is no longer standing with them.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I welcome this move today by the Government, and I welcome the removal of the word “reconciliation”.
There is a lot that I would like to say about this matter, but we are short of time so I will just get to the point. I have heard some remarks today that are incredibly disturbing and distressing. I do not want to pick on anybody, but the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—he will forgive me if I misrepresent him—“If the price of giving veterans an amnesty is that terrorists get the same, well then that is a price I am willing to pay.” Well, that is a price that I and the people of Lagan Valley, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, are simply not willing to pay.
We have had a conversation today about, “Oh, we all agree there is no moral equivalence.” Fair enough, but I do not know what on earth moral equivalence is unless it is a situation where terrorists and people who wore uniform are both given a carve-out from the rule of law. And by the way, none of us gets to speak for veterans en masse. I have veterans in my own house. I am proud of them. And do you know what? They never asked for immunity.
I agree with my colleagues from Northern Ireland whenever they say that there is a wholesale rewriting of history—absolutely, there is; it is already in progress—but I would simply ask them to stop, pause and think. There is a rewriting of history already going on, and there are those who are not present in this House today who will say, “See, told you so: they all needed a get-out-jail-free card, because we can’t guarantee that every single person who served in Northern Ireland did so honourably and lawfully.” Think what that will give them. I do not want that to happen—I do not want that to happen. And where there was wrongdoing, where there is a list of cases, some of the people who I know who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the UDR and the regular Army will be the first to say, “Where there is wrongdoing, let us put it right, because we do not want that to besmirch our reputation.”
Lastly, we are, arguably, already in a hybrid war and we are potentially considering future deployments. I do not want anybody representing the UK overseas to have this hanging over them. I am proud to be Northern Irish. I am proud to be British. I am also proud to be Irish. But most of all, I am proud to say that we should be able to stand by the rule of law, wherever we are deployed. We should not lower our standards because we worry about the standards of terrorists and the evidence available to them. We should maintain our rule of law. I will be supporting this order today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances. Yet this order is all about removing protections that would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts.
I have heard many people on the Government Benches say, “Oh, we’ve got to uphold the rule of law.” That is totally naive. This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland; this is about the abuse of the law by those who cannot accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign, who want to rewrite the history of that terrorist campaign, and who want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people on this side of the argument who oppose what is happening today, do so not because we do not wish people who did wrong to face justice, but because we know that these cases will almost certainly fail, just as the case against Soldier F failed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said, the punishment is the process. People will be put through unnecessary hell before they are acquitted. That has nothing to do with justice.
Sammy Wilson
No, it has nothing to do with justice.
Although the Secretary of State and others today have argued that this is all about helping victims, innocent victims will not get any justice through this system, because it comes down to who holds the records. When cases go to the courts, there will be no documentation to bring from IRA campaigns and activities. Members should read the book written by Austin Stack, whose father was a prison officer in Portlaoise and who sought for 20 years to get justice. One line of the book that stands out is when Gerry Adams eventually took him to meet some of the IRA commanders, and in the car on the way there he said, “Don’t expect too much, because we don’t keep records.” That is the problem. The state kept records, but the IRA and the terrorists did not keep records, so the cases are going to be one-sided.
The Secretary of State told us today that, as a result of this measure, 200 new civil cases will be opened, 120 of them against the MOD. The statistics have shown quite clearly that most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases will be taken against the MOD. That is because there is a deliberate campaign to rewrite history. The vast majority of people who take forward these cases want to ensure that they get a case into court, drag out all the information that is available—held by the state—and get a result that paints the picture that the IRA and the terrorists were the wronged parties.
If anything, this does not give comfort to victims but only rubs salt in their wounds. That is why this remedial order is wrong. It will present the chance to rewrite history, and it will lead to huge costs in compensation claims. As has been said, it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future that this tactic might be used against them. That is why this is bad.
The Secretary of State knows that he did not need to bring this measure forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in his excellent speech, laid out the reasons why that is the case, so I will not go through them. Why is the Secretary of State going through with this? He knows the results, so why does he pursue it? I can only assume that he puts the adherence to the ECHR above the interests of veterans and victims, and that is a disgrace.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
We have been unwavering in our opposition to the notion of immunity. There has never been a justification for arbitrarily closing down legal routes for innocent victims—not in 1998, not during the darkest days of the troubles, and certainly not today. While the Secretary of State and his party are perhaps late to this party, we do welcome his desire to remove the prospect of amnesty and, with it, the perverse equivalence drawn between those brave soldiers and police officers who acted within the law and the terrorists who were intent only on murder and destruction. That moral equivalence has poisoned legacy discourse for far too long.
When it comes to this debate, and the fact that the Government are pressing ahead prematurely with this remedial action, it is not just that we dispute the policy; the fact is that it is rubbing salt in the wounds of victims and will open the floodgates. It will not help one innocent victim, but it will open the floodgates against our brave soldiers—those who stood as human shields between good and evil. What is disputed is the reckless manner in which this Government are attempting to achieve this —and all to placate the Government in Dublin, whose approach has always been obstruction and concealment.
The fact that the Secretary of State is willing to pre-empt the outcome of an appeal to the highest court in the land sets a dangerous precedent. More importantly, it sends a message to the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—men and women who have already given more than enough—that its views and its stake in this process are dispensable.
It will come as no shock to the Secretary of State to hear that there are aspects of the draft remedial order that we have grave concerns about. It is clear that any benefit from reinstating civil cases will be accrued by a subset of victims whose claims are directed towards the security forces. Once again, the full weight of the state is being aimed not at terrorists but at those who stood against them. Where exactly does the right hon. Member suggest those who were bereaved at the hands of terrorists can seek compensation from the provisional IRA? It is an organisation that still refuses to disband, disarm fully and even acknowledge the scale and brutality of its crimes and murders.
Innocent victims and our brave ex-service personnel are crying out for fairness, not arrangements that aid and abet the rewriting of history—a history in which terrorists are daily being recast as victims, and soldiers as villains. The Secretary of State seems content to acquiesce to those who would use the courts to distort the truth of the past. This House should be under no illusion: this is not about justice; it is about narrative. We only have to think of Loughgall. Let us be absolutely clear about what Loughgall was: it was not a tragic accident or a miscarriage of justice, but the right and proper action on the part of brave soldiers to halt and take out an armed terrorist unit on the verge of carnage. Yet, decades later, the full machinery of the state is being turned against those who prevented a massacre, when the Secretary of State backs this latest inquest. Meanwhile, families devastated by IRA bombs and bullets continue to wait, many without answers, many without justice and many without even acknowledgment.
This is not about truth; it is about blurring the distinction between those who served the law and those who sought to destroy it. It is time for this Government to show the resolve needed to defend those who defended us. They must not do so with warm words or platitudes but with action. The remedial order fails in that aim; it weakens protections, emboldens lawfare and abandons veterans to endless legal jeopardy, and we cannot and will not support it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On the first Sunday of this year, I stood with the families of the innocent victims of the Kingsmill massacre as they marked 50 years since that horrendous event. It would have been fitting if the Secretary of State had been there —he was not. Last Sunday there was another commemoration, to mark the equally horrendous sectarian murder of more Protestant workmen at Teebane.
The common denominator of victims and families such as those is that they not just feel but know that they are the forgotten ones. They know that they are not the priority of this Government, and they know that it is the country that gives shelter to the murderers of their loved ones that is the priority of this Government. Dress it up as he will, the Secretary of State’s remedial order is motivated by one thing and one thing only: appeasing the Government of the Irish Republic, who want to drag this United Kingdom before the Bar of the European Court of Human Rights. That is what this remedial order is about.
This remedial order is not about ceasing to implement laws with which the Government disagree, because those aspects of the legacy Act have already been removed from effectiveness. Just look at paragraph 6.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the remedial order:
“Although the provisions declared incompatible with the ECHR by the High Court in Northern Ireland have also been disapplied”—
they are gone!—
“the Government considers it important to remove all these provisions from the statute book swiftly.”
Why? The answer is the one that I have given: to appease the Dublin Government.
Indeed, the Secretary of State came pretty close to confirming that when he said in this House this afternoon that if and when the remedial order goes through, it is his view that there would be no basis upon which to continue the Republic of Ireland’s action. That is the problem. We have a Secretary of State who is genuflecting to the Dublin Government. That is the feeling of innocent victims in our country. They are forgotten, but worse than that, they are way down the queue when it comes to a Government that are interested primarily in facilitating those who give shelter to their killers.
There is no legal justification for this. It is quite clear under section 10 of the Human Rights Act that there is a live issue before a live case in the Supreme Court. It is the issue of whether article 2 of the Windsor framework, which, as I demonstrated in my interventions, was used by the court to require the provisions to be disapplied, was a valid basis for disapplication. That is a live issue, therefore there is no legal justification—quite the reverse—for this remedial order, which drives us to the conclusion that it is for the reason that I have said.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Myself and my party, the DUP, stand squarely—[Interruption.]
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us will be very important. I wonder if he would just take a deep breath and give us his counsel.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The door to justice must remain open. No equivalence can or should be drawn between the innocent victim and the perpetrator. Every family deserves a full and fair investigation into the death of their loved one, and there should be appropriate safeguards against vexatious troubles investigations.
I am here today to speak on behalf of all those families who seek justice. My family seeks justice, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks justice for his friend and comrade. It is for them that I underline the major flaws in this remedial order. It does not provide protection for service personnel. There is the recent history of members of the security forces being maligned and dragged through the courts as a result of vexatious allegations. Let us never forget that those stem from an attempt to whitewash the history of the troubles, which was overwhelmingly about paramilitaries murdering and maiming at their unjustifiable will. Let me be clear: I talk about those with clean hands.
The announcement of the Irish Government’s role in the process, considering their perceived inaction on legacy issues within their own jurisdiction, which includes a parallel inquiry into the Omagh bombing, is yet more salt in the wound of those who watch murderers skip over the border with impunity. The reason that we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear and warranted: it was a murder haven for years.
Without information, there can be no Irish influence. Anything less is the gravest insult to the memory of those murdered and to the families who grieve them. The fact of the matter is that we can never equate the death of a terrorist killed when carrying out murder—[Interruption.]
David Smith
The hon. Gentleman will know the respect with which he is held in this Chamber for raising attention to the matters of terrorist atrocities over many years. On both sides of the House, we are keen to hear his stories, so we would just like him to take a moment and we look forward to hearing them.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that. My cousin Kenneth Smyth and his good friend Daniel McCormick were murdered in an ambush on the way to work on 10 December 1971—54 years ago. There is no justice for my family and no justice for young Daniel McCormick. Their only crime was to wear the uniform of this nation, because they were in the Ulster Defence Regiment. They dared to cross the religious divide—Daniel was a Roman Catholic; my cousin Kenneth was a Protestant—and protect their communities from evil men. On 10 December they were slaughtered, leaving their wives and three young children behind. Those men escaped across the border to that murder haven in the Republic of Ireland.
Stuart Montgomery, 18 years old, was murdered by the IRA at Pomeroy. There was never any accountability for his family. Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA on 9 August 1971 while manning a checkpoint outside my aunt Isobel’s farm down at Clady. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun, they drove across the road, they cleared the bridge and where did they go? To the Republic of Ireland. I do not know whether Raymond McCord is watching this. I am sure he is, back home. His son was murdered by the UVF because he stood up to them. He seeks justice as well. I seek justice for him, and I put that on record.
The Bill does nothing for those mourning families. It does nothing for the families of the Ballydugan Four. On 9 April 1990, near Ballydugan, Downpatrick, a Provisional IRA bomb blew up four men, three of whom I knew. I worked with Private Michael Adams in a butcher’s shop and I served with him in the Territorial Army. He joined the UDR. I remember the day Private John Birch was born. He died as well. I did not know Lance Corporal John Bradley from Dundalk, unfortunately, but he deserves justice. Then there was Private Steven Smart from Newtownards. I knew his dad and the family really well. The four men were killed. The explosion was massive, killing the four men in the second vehicle instantly and creating a crater some 50 feet long.
The point I want to make is that the Bill does not protect the RUC officer who shot the man who pushed the button and who blew up those four men. I will put it on record in this House that Colum Marks was the murdering scum of an IRA commander in Downpatrick who killed those four UDR men. Was he ever held accountable? No, he was not, but he did get held to account at one time. In Downpatrick, when he tried to set up a horizontal mortar bomb, he was shot by an RUC officer who was then taken and charged. The investigation found that he was not guilty, but the point I want to make is that we need protection. We need to make sure of that.
I am going to finish with this. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my tears. I find it very hard to express these things that have happened to people that I served with and knew. I am asking the Members of this House to ask themselves this: will this legislation do what the troubles legislation was intended for and provide justice? No, it will not. Will it help my cousin Shelley, my family and all the other families, including the family of Private Steven Smart, a lovely young boy, whose family I speak to down the street in Newtownards? No, it will not. Will this legislation enable the continued persecution of RUC, UDR and British Army veterans, many of whom have had their honourable service doubted and disputed, and who deserve better from this House? Will this Bill help to bring healing and comfort? The answer is no, it will not, and therefore I believe that tonight it must not pass.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Can I ask the House to pay tribute to and acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That emotion, that story and that heartfelt contribution to today’s debate are replicated across many houses across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this United Kingdom, in regard to those who have lost loved ones, both at the hands of terrorism and in other circumstances in Northern Ireland. That emotion is also felt by our veterans.
It is only when I came into this place that I realised, as a Northern Ireland politician, that when we speak of a Northern Ireland veteran, we speak of the RUC, the UDR, the home regiments and those who served, as well as the family and relatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford and all those who contributed, including all those who went home at night not knowing if their colleague walking beside them was actually the individual who was passing information to the person who was planning their murder. But when I came here, I realised that the conversation is also about the Northern Ireland veterans from England, Scotland and Wales who came to Northern Ireland to serve and to defend and protect what we believed was a democratic system in regard to our rights and our beliefs.
Let us remember that context in regard to that emotion and that service, and then look at what is being brought forward to this House and what is being asked of Members of this House and of members of the Government.
I have respect for many of them, but throughout this three-hour debate—no harm to the Government—their Benches were empty. When the bells ring, Government Members will come and do what they have been bid to do. That is in complete contrast with Monday evening. The question has been raised: why are we rushing this remedial order while there is no troubles Bill to replace it? Why the rush? On Monday evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), said on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill that
“we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 103.]
It is right to acknowledge that that is not a simple issue. The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward, which is why they took the decision to delay. If it was right for the Government to do that on Monday evening, it is right for this Secretary of State to delay this remedial order until the judge and the courts have had their opportunity to complete their processes in regard to what is right and just, and then this House can have that legal, informed debate on why we should be moving forward.
I want to refer to two contributions from Government Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who I have a lot of respect for from when she served in the Northern Ireland Office, referred to how rare it is to use a remedial order, so why use it in haste? Why not take the time to actually reflect on what it is? In regard to those parts of the legislation that are being removed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) said that they have actually never taken effect, so why the rush to bring this remedial order?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I want to make a couple of points, one about democracy and one about service and justice. I am deeply uneasy about this remedial order being brought in today. I will make no criticism of those who are here, but for major parts of this debate over the past three hours, the Government Back Benches were empty and yet 20-plus veterans have stayed in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings and see justice being done. I find it worrying. It is 6.57 pm on a Wednesday. There will be Members in the Tea Room and the bars, and Members working hard in their offices. The bells will ring, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) said, and they will come down and ask each other, “What are we voting on?” and they will say, “Oh, it’s a Northern Ireland thing.” What they will not realise is that this remedial order removes a law from existence before another one is put in place.
Lincoln Jopp
I haven’t got time. I do not think that we are doing the House, or indeed Parliament, justice by proceeding in this way.
I was a soldier for 25 years and spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan—he was the chief constable at the time—and he told me that I am only on my first tour. Soldiers put up with a lot. I was not given any more powers by this House than those of a private citizen—not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen’s bidding. I happily did it and so did others. In my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two guardsmen—Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—were in a judgmental shooting situation, and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment, so soldiers put up with stuff.
But one of the things I find it very difficult to put up with is that when all the Government Members troop through the Lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. I find that incredibly difficult because it is on an admin error: his internment order was signed by a Minister of State and not the Secretary of State. It is on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned and for trying to escape unsuccessfully—twice. He will get a triple whammy of compensation.
Lincoln Jopp
I will not.
I challenged the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) earlier, asking him to speak to veterans and the people of Halesowen to justify why that triple whammy is okay, and why he is prepared to go through the Lobby to vote for it tonight. And he said, “The Prime Minister has told me that that’s okay, and that he is not going to allow it. I heard him here at PMQs.” Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I am delighted to see back in his place, is not aware that, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. The hon. Gentleman is completely free to wander through the Lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that what the Prime Minister said does not amount to a hill of beans. If he can summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.
Hilary Benn
We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.
First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.
Stuart Anderson
The Secretary of State said there is no consensus in Northern Ireland. Having listened to tonight’s speeches, does he believe his approach has achieved that?
Hilary Benn
I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.
Hilary Benn
What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.
If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate.
The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.
Gavin Robinson
I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?
Hilary Benn
We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment. That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised.
What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.
It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.
Hilary Benn
No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.
The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.
We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order.
Question put,
Gavin Robinson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks, but I place on record my appreciation for the agreement that this evening’s motion could be extended for double-time. Having praised the usual channels, the Government and Opposition Chief Whips and the Leader of the House, may I also pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for trying to ensure that everyone was accommodated. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is appreciated. As the Secretary of State knows, I do not appreciate the outcome, but I do appreciate that all Members were included.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
While that is not a point of order, it is very much appreciated and it is on the record.
Business without Debate
Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Our waterways in Bath are the envy of the country. Across England and Wales, more than 30,000 boats are licensed to navigate our canals and rivers, and Bath stands out as a particular hotspot. Many boaters choose to make Bath their home, whether moored permanently or passing through as part of a longer journey. The Kennet and Avon canal flows gracefully through our world heritage city, shaping our landscape and connecting our community through nature. We value every one of our boaters in Bath, especially our live-aboard boating communities, many of whom work locally, raise families and care deeply about the waterways.
Riverside businesses contribute so much to our local economy, and they create welcoming spaces enjoyed by people across the city. We have a shared responsibility to keep these places safe, clean and accessible to everyone. Rising rents, a lack of social housing and the increased cost of living mean that living on the water is a more affordable option for many. There are more boats on our canals than during the peak of the industrial revolution, with a quarter of those estimated to be live-aboard residential vessels. A study by Promarine Finance found that three quarters of live-aboard owners have never owned a home, with 90% of them citing the cost of living as a factor.
In Bath, boaters and residents of houses along our waterways have co-existed peacefully for decades as neighbours and friends, but it is not just residents who make use of our canals and waterways. People from all over Bath and beyond come to see the beautiful scenery and nature that the canal provides. The towpath also serves as an important active travel route for walkers and cyclists. These areas must be protected for boaters, local residents and visitors alike.
That brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent years, residents along the Kennet and Avon canal have experienced persistent and at times dangerous antisocial behaviour on the part of a small minority of individuals. Our canals are residential areas, but all too often families and individuals have been subjected to loud music late into the night, bonfires, and acts of vandalism that make it impossible for them to enjoy their homes in peace.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The hon. Lady mentions vandalism. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill on water safety, which covers a range of issues, in memory of a young lad who lived in Yorkshire and who passed away from drowning in a reservoir. I promised, in the name of Sam, that I would do something about vandalism by making it a named criminal offence for anyone to vandalise water safety equipment. The risk, in terms of the penalty, would be much higher, and would therefore prevent such vandalism from taking place. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something we should fight to do, in honour of Sam and for his dad, Simon Haycock?
Wera Hobhouse
Let me first express my condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent who drowned so tragically. Such tragedies demonstrate that antisocial behaviour often constitutes thoughtless vandalism. People do not understand what they are doing. We need to make people think about what they do, and legislation may be necessary to enforce that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue as a particular concern, and I will of course welcome and support his Bill. Good luck to it.
Constituents have written to me with deeply worrying accounts of drug and alcohol misuse, public urination, and towpaths obstructed by furniture and dumped rubbish. That can also be a massive hazard. As I have just said, people often do not think when they do these things, so unfortunately we sometimes have to use the law to encourage the right behaviour. No resident or visitor to Bath should ever feel unsafe on our canals, and the behaviour that I have described is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling are reports of human waste being emptied directly into the canal, black bags of excrement left beside towpaths, and diesel and oil spills polluting the water. There are also serious concerns about boats remaining in short-stay mooring zones for months— sometimes for over a year—alongside abandoned vessels blocking locks and essential services, and preventing hire boats from being navigated safely. All those problems are caused by people being thoughtless, so it is important for the right measures to be in place to keep people safe.
My constituents—and, I am sure, many others throughout the country—are rightly frustrated by the ongoing failure to enforce rules governing our canals. These problems are well known, but no one seems to be able to fix them. A key reason for that is the fragmented enforcement landscape. The Canal & River Trust is responsible for managing most of the canals in England and Wales. Its remit covers everything from boat licensing and mooring rules to obstruction and navigation, but it is attempting to enforce its statutory responsibilities within a framework that is fundamentally flawed. It was established as a charity in 2012 to take over from British Waterways, the statutory body that had previously managed our canal network. While the trust would still receive a Government grant, the idea was that any shortfalls would be made up by its various commercial ventures, much the same arrangement that applies to the National Trust. However, the Canal & River Trust and the National Trust are very different. The latter has commercial properties, thousands of paying members and huge tourism revenues, while the former has a property portfolio that is costly to maintain, and only a small amount of income from the rents paid by boaters. No other charity has as its primary responsibility the upkeep of so much critical infrastructure. As a result, we now have a charity tasked with enforcement powers but without the legal clarity or the practical capacity to use them effectively.
However, resources alone are not the core issue. I have met representatives of the Canal & River Trust on numerous occasions, including a candid discussion about these issues just a few days ago. They are clear that the principal barrier they face is the outdated legal framework governing our waterways. The British Waterways Act 1995 provides only limited powers; crucially, it fails to give the trust the powers it needs to manage boats effectively and fairly. Take the rule governing boats without a permanent mooring: the law states that such boats must not remain
“continuously in any one place for more than 14 days”,
yet it offers no definition of what “one place” means or of how far a boat must move to comply. It is left to the Canal & River Trust to interpret the legislation, leading to regular disputes that take up valuable time and resources. I urge the Minister to take this issue back to her Department, and to engage with the Canal & River Trust on improving that part of the legislation.
The trust’s powers to deal with unlicensed boats are also severely limited. Even where powers exist, enforcement can take two or three years, or longer if challenged, rendering them largely ineffective. It is currently very difficult to remove abandoned boats. First, the Canal & River Trust must establish whom the boat belongs to. Even then, removal can cost around £8,000 per boat—money that the trust often does not get back. Safeguards must remain in place, particularly for the people who live on these boats—boaters should have the right to contest any decision of this nature—but our waterways are shared public assets. Residents and responsible boaters alike are rightly frustrated at having to wait years for action to be taken against persistent antisocial behaviour or unlicensed vessels.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before the hon. Lady takes the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me say that I am looking forward to hearing his knowledge of the canals and rivers in Bath.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I explained why it is so important that I support her. In the middle of Newtownards, my major town, we have a massive canal—it has been there since the year 1—so I understand some of the things that the hon. Lady refers to. I asked her about antisocial behaviour, which is what I want to focus on. In Newtownards, the canal has long been a focus of antisocial behaviour, particularly as the local park is right beside it. Does she agree that although it is wonderful that our local team of street pastors actively address the issue of antisocial behaviour, it is about partnership? The partnership between street pastors, the police and communities helps to address antisocial behaviour. I always try to be helpful in any debate.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman did talk to me before the debate, and I was happy to take his intervention. Bath is an example of the challenges that exist everywhere. We are here to discuss those, but also to point to the partnerships that are essential if we are to resolve the issues, so I thank him for his contribution. Yes, we need to work in partnerships.
The Canal & River Trust stands ready to act, but it needs clearer and stronger legal powers to do so. Perhaps the most baffling thing of all is that the trust has no powers to issue fines or even to refuse a licence. The solution is straightforward: the law should be strengthened to clarify exactly what is required of boaters and to equip the trust with proportionate, enforceable powers, balanced by appropriate safeguards to ensure that those powers are used fairly.
The Canal & River Trust is very keen to engage constructively with all parties on this issue, particularly in hotspots such as Bath, but another major obstacle is the range of stakeholders involved. While the Canal & River Trust manages day-to-day canal operations, the Environment Agency is responsible for pollution and environmental protection, local authorities oversee byelaws relating to littering and antisocial behaviour, and the police retain responsibility for criminal offences. It is easy to see how issues such as dumping, vandalism and the burning of inappropriate fuels fall between those overlapping remits. As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible, which is why all too often these issues remain unresolved.
Matters are further complicated by restrictive interpretations of the GDPR, which restricts information sharing between agencies. Each body recognises the problem, but none can resolve it alone. I intend to bring together the Canal & River Trust, the police, the Environment Agency and the local authority to improve local co-ordination and enforcement, but let me make it clear that, although better collaboration is essential, this alone is not enough. To genuinely improve enforcement on our waterways—and I echo the calls of the Canal & River Trust in this regard—we must see meaningful reform of the law.
To conclude, Bath is certainly a hotspot for boaters, but this is a nationwide problem. “The Future of Licensing” report, published in October 2025, highlights insufficient powers, chronic under-resourcing and unsustainable enforcement arrangements as just some of the issues facing the Canal & River Trust. My constituents are tired of waiting for action. They want clear accountability for antisocial behaviour on our waterways, proper funding for enforcement services, faster and proportionate powers where behaviour is dangerous or polluting, and better multi-agency co-ordination between the Canal & River Trust, councils, police and the Environment Agency. If we are serious about fixing this, we must give those responsible the clear authority and resources they need—the authority to regulate, enforce and act—so that our canals and rivers are not sources of frustration and conflict, but safe and well-managed spaces that work for residents, boaters and the wider community alike.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate and thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention about the canals in Northern Ireland.
May I, through my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), send my sympathies to the parents of the little boy who died in Doncaster? His tragic story is a reminder that a senseless act of vandalism, or what looks and feels like fun in the moment, can have absolutely devastating consequences. It is also a reminder of the need for those responsible for reservoirs and towpaths to have in place a regime that makes sure the safety equipment is always there and properly maintained.
I share the concerns of hon. Members and the public about these serious matters. We have heard about significant nuisance to local people and communities that can also involve damage to property, physical threats and even assault. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the cost of living crisis is at the heart of this, because people have been priced out of houses in the gorgeous city of Bath, where there are many second homeowners and Airbnbs. I enjoyed a weekend there with my husband to celebrate our wedding anniversary, and it is lovely—we can feel that it is a very special place—but it may be very hard for people to afford local housing in her city.
The Government are committed to tackling this type of antisocial behaviour. We are proposing a range of measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place. Those new powers include a new respect order to ban adult offenders from engaging in specified activities, and increasing the maximum fixed penalty for breaches of a public spaces protection order or a community protection notice, from £100 to £500.
As the hon. Member said, and as I know from cycling up and down canal towpaths—slowly, and always dinging my bell twice when behind pedestrians—people living on the waterways are a deterrent against the types of antisocial behaviour that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The natural surveillance of the people living on the boats means there is a huge disincentive to engage in criminal behaviour close to them.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Canal & River Trust is the responsible authority for the Kennet and Avon canal and the River Avon in Bath. It is aware of the problems and the concerns raised locally. It does not have policing powers, but it is responsible for the safe management both of its land and of waterways. It has policies governing unacceptable behaviour and site management, and those set out the expected conduct and outline when the trust can intervene or escalate issues.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister has mentioned before that more powers will be given to the police, but often the main problem is that the police say, “We don’t have the resources to police the canal all the time,” while ultimately it is the Canal & River Trust that looks after canals, rivers and towpaths. There must be more that the Canal & River Trust can do about antisocial behaviour.
Mary Creagh
If the hon. Lady were to convene a regular set of meetings—say, quarterly—on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I have found that the steady drumbeat of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together to tackle these issues, alongside the community of users and canal dwellers.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for all that she does and for her answers to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) in trying to find a way forward. I mentioned the street pastors in Strangford. I am not sure if every town and city has street pastors, but there are many people from the churches who have an interest in young people and issues relating to them. I am a great believer in rehabilitation and working with young people—they are not all bad. It is just a thought, but if somebody can work alongside them, perhaps we can address some of the antisocial behaviour issues.
Mary Creagh
What the hon. Gentleman says is so true. I know from my enjoyment of the Coventry canal running through Foleshill that lots of communities fear canals. They do not think it is a blue space for their recreation. They do not feel ownership of it. The difference between the usership of the canal that runs through Foleshill—through the poorest part of my constituency; the poorest part of the city of Coventry—and the canal that runs through King’s Cross St Pancras, where I have cycled up and down many times, is staggering. Communities can feel ownership or exclusion. Everywhere is safer where everybody feels that they can belong. Unpicking some of those barriers and working with communities that may be typecast, such as young people, is a positive solution, ensuring that people do not want to litter, leave their beer bottles or engage in antisocial behaviour.
Having read about this beforehand, it seems to me that there is an issue with stag parties on boats—there certainly has been in the past—which sounds quite tricky. We must also ensure that people have competence, so that if they hire a boat that is supposed to go only 3 or 4 mph, they actually know what they are doing, because they are quite difficult to steer. One does not want to go too fast, as I discovered when I had to have the tiller taken off me when we were going through a very narrow bridge. I am always grateful to have training in these issues.
Canals, towpaths and river banks are shared spaces, freely accessible to anyone, and that is absolutely right. They are used by walkers, anglers, joggers and cyclists. As a cyclist, I see antisocial behaviour on canal towpaths. I am very conscious of trying to avoid it—of slowing down and, particularly when tackling bridges, of going super slowly so that there is no unexpected surprise for people who may be wearing headphones. The trust has published its towpath code and encourages all users to be respectful and considerate. Pedestrians have priority, cyclists are urged to slow down, dog walkers should keep their dogs under control—because that is quite tricky—and people are encouraged to take their litter home with them. There are, however, a mindless minority who use canals and towpaths inconsiderately. We have seen instances of fires being lit, littering, fly-tipping, drunken behaviour, loud noise at night from moored boats, speeding boats, blockages on the towpath and out-of-control dogs.
The trust works closely with Avon and Somerset police, and Bath and North East Somerset council, to address safety and community concerns. It is engaging to develop the antisocial behaviour action plan that manages the competing demands of waterway users and local residents fairly. We saw an example of that recently in London, where the trust worked with the police to remove an illegal encampment from the River Lea Navigation that had caused significant disruption to the local community and to other boaters nearby. The Government fully support the trust and law enforcement agencies in dealing with antisocial behaviour, and we intend to strengthen the powers available to them to do so.
One issue raised this evening is the statutory powers available to the trust to enforce its rules. I have heard the hon. Lady’s concerns that the powers are inadequate and fragmented, and can lead to lengthy and costly enforcement. The trust recognises this challenge. In December 2024 it established an independent boat licensing commission to review its licensing regime. The commission published its report in November 2025, with 36 recommendations to make licensing fairer, simpler, more enforceable and better aligned with the trust’s charitable objectives. It recommended that the trust should: clearly define the navigation requirement for continuous cruising boat licences, to replace the current vague legal requirement for “bone fide navigation”; seek powers to introduce differential charging or rationing for moorings in areas of high congestion; seek powers to use force as a last resort, with safeguards, following a court order to remove a boat from a waterway; have the civil powers to levy fines on licence holders in response to breaches of terms and conditions, and on towpath users for antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping; have the right to fit a tracking device to any vessel that is not complying with movement requirements, particularly in congested areas; and make the case to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consolidating the legislation by which the trust operates.
The trust is looking at those recommendations, determining which to prioritise, recognising that many will require new or amended legislation that will need wider consultation. Where legislative change may be needed, the Government are ready to support the trust. We are in regular touch with the trust, including through quarterly formal meetings with the CEO and the executive team. We will use our engagement to support them in identifying quick and robust solutions.
As an independent charity, the trust makes its own management and operational decisions. Since taking over its statutory duties from British Waterways in 2012, it has received Government support as it establishes its role and builds greater financial independence. The canal network presents a considerable challenge, but the trust has a significant commercial and charitable portfolio. This is a main source of its income, rather than filling shortfalls. Harnessing the diverse uses of the canal network will be vital to maintaining it for the future.
The trust has proved to be commercially dynamic, doubling the value of its property endowment from Government, from around £500 million in 2012 to £1 billion today. Last year that endowment provided around £50 million of revenue a year, while boat licences provided around £55 million. The Government currently provide the trust with an annual grant of £52.6 million. That amount represented 22% of the trust’s total income in the last financial year. The grant primarily contributes to the trust’s waterways infrastructure maintenance costs, which, as the hon. Lady says, are considerable but which also keep certain heritage skills alive. I remember that Stanley Ferry up near Wakefield was the site of the last lock gate makers in the country, and their incredible craftwork can be seen on locks across the country—Members might want to look out for their badge when they are next at a canal lock. The Government have agreed to provide the trust with a further 10-year grant of £401 million from April 2027. That will continue to support the trust’s canal infrastructure maintenance, helping to keep the waterways safe and navigable.
In closing, I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate, and I agree that we must take action to tackle antisocial behaviour, in all its forms, on the canals and towpaths. People deserve to enjoy these blue walkways and amazing places. Who would have believed that it is possible to see a kingfisher on Coventry canal right next to the old Cash’s silkworks, one mile from the heart of Coventry city centre? It was a sight I never thought I would see—my first ever kingfisher.
People deserve to live free from nuisance, intimidation and damage to their property and to feel safe in the place they call home. Dignity and respect are not optional extras but the foundations of strong, decent communities that have pride in where they live. We will keep working until every neighbourhood feels safe, including those on the canals in Bath and across the country. The Canal & River Trust is playing its part by working closely with local authorities, police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour on the waterways. It is also working to strengthen and streamline its licensing powers to ensure fairness for all users. We will continue to support this work through grant funding, assisting with any legislative changes that may be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Turner.
On 1 April 2026, business rates bills will change as a result of the 2026 revaluation of all rateable values. The draft regulations will deliver a transitional relief scheme to gradually phase in bill increases resulting from the revaluation over three years. They will also deliver a 1p transitional relief supplement, in 2026-27 only, to help fund the cost of the support scheme.
I want to be clear to the Committee that the transitional relief scheme we are discussing is only one part of the support package announced by the Chancellor at the Budget in November. The transitional relief scheme by design only protects ratepayers from changes in their rates bills before other reliefs. As we know, changes in other rate reliefs can occur at the revaluation, which also affects rates bills. An obvious example is the ending of the covid-era 40% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which helped many businesses recover from covid over recent years.
That is why we also have in place the supporting small business relief scheme, which provides further support beyond transitional relief for those ratepayers who, at the revaluation, will lose certain other reliefs, including the 40% retail, hospitality and leisure relief. The supporting small business relief scheme is delivered by guidance rather than regulations, and the full details of the scheme were published in early December.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the concerns raised by the pub sector in recent weeks. As hon. Members will be aware, the Chancellor is looking at what more we can do to support pubs, and further work is under way. The details of that will be announced in the coming days. These further interventions are not formally part of today’s debate, but they are important context: as we consider the draft regulations, we must remember that they are only part of the picture. When taken together, our overall support package will ensure that most properties seeing bill increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest properties.
As hon. Members will be aware, revaluations are an important and necessary part of the business rates scheme. At revaluations, the rateable value—the estimated annual rental cost—of all 2 million non-domestic properties is uprated to reflect market conditions. At the same time, the multipliers—or tax rates—are adjusted in response to the overall movement in the tax base. To put it simply, if the overall total of rateable value increases at the revaluation, it has a downward pressure on the tax rates, and vice versa. That is why the multipliers for next year will be at a lower rate than they are currently. The new rateable values, which were published by the Valuation Office Agency in draft in November, will be applied from 1 April.
The nature of revaluations means that some ratepayers’ bills will go up, some will stay the same, and of course some will go down. The Government know that, and we know that support is required to help some of those ratepayers seeing increases to move gradually to their new liability over time. That is why we have introduced the generous support package to help ratepayers with their new liability over three years, at the centre of which is the transitional relief scheme we are discussing today.
The transitional relief scheme that the draft regulations will deliver will provide support to around half a million ratepayers that will see their bills rise substantially as a result of the 2026 business rates revaluation. That support will be provided over three years, and is worth about £3.2 billion.
The scheme will cap bill increases that arise due to the revaluation by a set percentage each year; for example, in the first year of the revaluation, 2026-27, the caps in the transitional relief scheme are 5% for small properties, 15% for medium properties and 30% for large properties. The caps are before changes in other reliefs and local supplements, such as the Crossrail supplement charged in London, so changes in actual bills may differ from the caps. As I have said, we have provided further support for properties losing certain other reliefs, such as the current 40% retail, hospitality and leisure relief.
For this revaluation, the transitional relief scheme will provide more generous caps for large properties in years 2 and 3, compared with previous revaluations. The caps will also rise with inflation in 2027-28 and 2028-29, as has been the case previously. Of course, ratepayers’ bills may also change for other reasons, unrelated to the revaluation—for example, if the property has been improved.
At the Budget, the Chancellor announced that to help fund the cost of the transitional relief scheme, the Government would introduce a 1p transitional relief supplement. This will only apply for one year, from 1 April 2026. The impact of the supplement will add only 2% to 3% to the bills of affected ratepayers in 2026-27.
As I have said, it is important to note that the precise increase in bills next year, and in the future years of this rating list, will vary depending on the individual circumstances of each ratepayer and, in later years, on inflation. However, the caps will ensure that large increases are moderated, so that ratepayers have time to adjust to their new bills, as opposed to seeing a very large increase overnight on 1 April 2026. Transitional relief is calculated and applied automatically by local government; ratepayers do not have to contact their local authority to apply for it.
Revaluations are an important and necessary part of the business rates system. By ensuring that rateable values are updated in line with recent market values, we ensure that the burden of business rates is fairly distributed across the tax base in line with market conditions. Equally, we recognise that a large overnight change in their rates bill can be challenging for some businesses. That is why, at the Budget, the Chancellor announced a generous support package worth £4.3 billion, which includes protection to help ratepayers to transition to their new bill, with further support for pubs to be detailed in the coming days. The draft regulations will help to deliver that important support package by implementing the transitional relief scheme, and I commend them to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for what I think is the first time.
As the Minister outlined, the purpose of the draft regulations is to round off the otherwise larger increases in business rates, but it is important to put that in context. A short time ago, we had a general election, in which the Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. I appreciate that the Treasury is currently hiring a new business rates tax adviser, but this issue is not going away.
In Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) referred to a 2,000% increase in the business rates applying to one of the pubs in her constituency. Previously, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had reported that a survey showed an average increase of 41% for hospitality businesses, 44.4% for music venues and 27% for independent shops in her constituency. The body that represents the United Kingdom’s gym and health providers, ukactive, reports an average increase of 60% in the business rates for which its members are liable. The National Pharmacy Association has reported that its members are having to remortgage their homes and put their life savings into their businesses to meet the business rate increases proposed by the Government. To date, over the last 12 months, there have been a net 200,000 job losses in the retail sector, which businesses report are primarily due to increases in business rates and national insurance contributions.
It is clear that that reflects a very substantial, permanently higher rate of business rates and an unwelcome U-turn by the Government. All of us can see the practical impact in our communities, and I would bet that there is not a Member in this room who has not been lobbied by local pubs, cafés and shops about the impact that this is having on their business.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister agree that this is creating a perfect storm and that the reason so many people are getting in touch with us—many MPs on both sides of the House will have owners of pubs, restaurants and bars getting in touch with them—is that this business rates change will crystallise that? In coastal areas like Fylde, people have less money in their pockets, so there are fewer visitors to hospitality venues to start with. Those businesses already face significant cost increases because of changes to national insurance and other changes in the tax system. As a result, these 40%, 50% or 60% changes in business rates will be the final straw for many of those businesses.
The Chair
Order. We have an hour and a half to debate the regulations, but interventions must be a bit shorter.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend has outlined in very clear terms what any of us in this room could on behalf of our constituencies. There will be different local dynamics, but everywhere is suffering as a consequence of the increased taxes on businesses. Government Members might not wish to hear such messages from Opposition Members—and that is understandable, because this is politics—but they might listen to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). In Prime Minister’s questions, he said that “any wins” had been “wiped out” by the increase in business rates, compared with what was proposed through transitional relief, and he reported to the House 60% and 70% rises in business rates affecting his local pubs.
I will conclude with some questions for the Minister. First, what is the net benefit of all these measures—the increases in business rates and the transitional relief—to local councils? We know from the local government finance settlement that two thirds of local authorities in England lost net funding from central Government as a consequence. Given the substantial increase in business rates income that this would imply, what will the overall impact on local government funding be?
Secondly, what assessment has the Department made of the impact that this will have on high streets and local businesses in particular? Many of those business have been lobbying us because the family business tax, the rise in national insurance and the interaction with the changes in the point at which national insurance is charged have put huge pressure on them. The impact of these business rates on top of that is enormous.
Thirdly, what role have the local reliefs, which were briefly touched on by the Minister and are set out in the explanatory memo, played in the determination of the funding settlement? Although the fig leaf is offered that local reliefs may be available, it is clear that the Government’s assumption is that all these increases will be implemented in full before any consideration is given to additional funding. What consideration has the Minister given to a return to the local authority business growth incentive business rates regime, which was designed to incentivise local authorities, through additional support from central Government, to look to create opportunities to support local businesses and high streets, in a way that we know was very effective?
The Prime Minister said on 7 January that the Government were in talks to see
“what further support and action we can take.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 260.]
That was days after he acknowledged that as a result of this settlement, pubs and hospitality, in particular, “will struggle.” The question for Opposition Members is, is this it?
The Chair
Before I invite Members to bob if they want to catch my eye, may I ask them to stick strictly within the confines of the draft regulations, please?
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am here replacing another Member. When they told me the subject, I said, “Great! It is the first time I have ever actually known something about the subject.” They said, “For goodness’ sake, don’t let the Whips hear you say that”—such is the time in which we live. At the risk of incurring the wrath of Members who would clearly like to get out of this room as quickly as possible, I hope I might be of service to the Government on this issue.
For almost a decade I ran a local authority that collected one of the highest levels of business rates in the country. We are seeing the second highest increase as a result of changes being instituted now—such is the consequence of having a major airport in our patch. However, I am aware that we are likely to hold a vote on this topic, so I would like to frame in people’s minds exactly what is being debated before we get to a vote.
The current system of discounts for the hospitality industry is running out; no additional money has been put forward to fund it—it was not in the Budget. Currently, these things are not done through legislation or statutory instrument, but operate through guidance, with local authorities essentially given discretionary relief and paid back by the Government. If we do not put another arrangement in place, that collapses.
The proposed system delivers a lower rate than the previous system. If Members do not vote in favour of it, a system will come into effect that has a higher level of rates for the hospitality industry—with its level of interest in this—and for businesses that are struggling at the moment than is currently the case. This is the only proposal on the table at the moment.
Mr Snowden
If that is the case, would it not have been better if the Government had had the foresight to put a new system in place to deal with the discounts that existed before, and made some choices about where the pounds are spent—rather than on higher welfare, maybe on supporting businesses?
Peter Lamb
I would be delighted to have a different system in place. In fact, I spent many years as a local authority leader, lobbying the last Government to try to do anything on that front to resolve a system that, frankly, is still Elizabethan in design and in no way reflects the changing nature of local economies. It requires a fundamental review, and I understand from the Minister that we are looking at various changes at the moment, and further measures are being put in place to support people. However, I say to Members in this room today that if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote it down, they will in practice be voting for higher rates on these struggling businesses.
A second thing will happen. During covid, I was leader of my local authority, and businesses were suddenly unable to pay business rates. The liability around business rates is such that, regardless of what we have coming in as a local authority, we have to pay that money to the Government or they will take legal action; that is technically the requirement. My largest donor was Gatwick airport—[Interruption.] Rather, my largest contributor was Gatwick airport; it has not donated any money to me at all. It suddenly found that because aviation was hit so hard, it could not afford to pay its business rates at all. We faced a situation where local authorities in the area could not make payroll under the existing system. When Members vote today, they must therefore be very clear that they are voting to bankrupt not only the hospitality industry, the retail industry and other struggling sectors, but their own local authorities. That is all I will say on that.
If Opposition Members would like to propose something else in the House, we would be more than happy to debate it. However, if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote against it, they will have voted to put a higher rate of taxation on the hospitality industry.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I do not want to repeat the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I have listened carefully to the Minister and I have to say that essentially, this measure is a sticking-plaster over a gaping wound. It is of course the case that specific relief was provided during covid and that was going to come to an end, but it did not have to be removed in its entirety overnight. It is that decision, which is a choice being made by the Government, that has inflicted these enormous rates bill increases on many businesses right across the country, particularly on the high street.
I have been contacted by many of the pubs in my constituency and they have raised concerns about not just the impact of these existing measures, but the Government’s promise that there is some relief coming over the horizon, because it is extremely unclear what that will be. As one example, the pub I visited last weekend had rooms upstairs, so does it qualify as a hotel or a pub, and to what extent is the relief package going to benefit it? Those influences are having a real impact and affecting businesses’ decision about whether they can continue to trade. It is simply not good enough for the Government to say, “Well, in due course we’ll get round to telling them.”
It is not just pubs; I hear the Minister talking about relief coming for pubs, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said, many other kinds of businesses are equally impacted. I am a patron of the Music Venue Trust, which represents grassroots music venues across the country. As I raised with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber earlier this week, some of them have not paid rates before and are suddenly facing bills, and others are seeing enormous increases. As the MVT said in its statement on the measures, these are not bills but “closure notices”—these venues will simply not survive.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley that the measure that we are debating will provide some small relief but it is simply not enough. It is not going to address the real issues that are affecting businesses. I hope the Minister will press her colleagues to introduce those measures and tell us a little more because at the moment there is total uncertainty for businesses and their future.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will keep this brief. I was grateful that the Minister recognised that this issue must be set in its wider context: businesses are struggling. I regularly have conversations with businesses in my constituency and we are getting to the point where the situation could be a closure notice for many, as was mentioned earlier. The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that the Government promised to permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, but have failed to use the full powers they gave themselves to deliver support.
We are also concerned about transparency and accountability. Despite repeated parliamentary questions, the Government have not published clear, sector-specific data on the impact of the revaluation, even though the Valuation Office Agency has confirmed that such data was shared with the Treasury. That lack of transparency makes it so much harder for Members to assess what the revaluation really means for their constituencies. That is ever so important where industries, such as hospitality, are a major part of their local economy. We have argued for practical targeted support and we have called for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality, accommodation and attractions. We have also raised concerns about the cumulative impact of alcohol duty and national insurance rises.
Ultimately, we believe the measure set out in this statutory instrument do not go far enough to address the scale of the challenge facing businesses in places like my constituency, but voting against it would be voting against any transitional support at all, so for that reason, while I cannot support it, I will not oppose it. I will abstain and we will continue, as a party, to press the Government to recognise the pressures facing town centres and to take urgent action to protect pubs and jobs. I do push the Government, however, because they need to do more and they need to do what they have promised.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I welcome the tiny—absolute minuscule—support that the Government are offering in this legislation. We are continually told that most rates will be capped and the changes will not affect most businesses on the high street, but I have not spoken to a single business or pub on my high street that is not seeing a significant increase in its business rates, even with the relief. Let us take the Farmers Boy in Brickendon: its business rates are going to go from £4,000 to £8,000. I do not understand which businesses the Minister or people in the Department are speaking to out there to say that most are not going to see an increase. From the businesses that I speak to, that is simply not true.
We continually hear from the Government, “You guys were in power before the last general election,” but they have had 18 months and they have done nothing. They had 14 years in opposition when they could have come up with a credible plan for government, but they have proved to the people up and down the United Kingdom that they were clearly incapable of doing that. I want to understand from the Minister what the Government will do to support businesses and stop these closure notices—because they are closure notices for many of my constituents in Broxbourne.
Samantha Dixon
Today’s debate illustrates clearly how passionate Members are about their local high streets and the businesses in their constituencies, which I completely recognise. I will try to address Members’ comments.
The introduction of the permanently lower rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, paid for by the high-value multiplier, is just the first step in the Government’s programme to transform the business rates system, which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked me about. In September 2025, the Government published an interim “Transforming Business Rates” report to set out what we will do next to meet our objective of delivering a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget, a call for evidence was published on the role of business rates in business investment, which will help us to develop a system that better supports investment and economic growth. The transformation of the business rates system is a multi-year programme happening throughout this Parliament, with much more to come.
I turn to other issues. The hon. Member asked about the impact on local government. We hope that the revaluation will be, as much as possible, neutral. We will adjust the business rates retention scheme to offset the impact on local revenues.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that point. It slightly begs the question, however, if the main purpose of these increases—we have heard about 2,000%, 60% and 27% increases for independent shops, as well as 200,000 job losses—is to raise additional business rates income, but the effect on local government finance is neutral. What on earth is the point of inflicting all that pain on the business sector if it does not put a single extra penny in the pockets of local government?
Samantha Dixon
We do recognise that business rates make up about a quarter of local authorities’ core spending power and they support critical local services, but the revaluations maintain fairness in the system by redistributing business rate liabilities among ratepayers to reflect recent market conditions. Standard features of the business rates tax system mean that between financial years, tax take may increase or decrease due to inflation or changes in relief. Hon. Members will be aware that rates rise in line with inflation and change annually to reflect inflation. On the wider impact on local government, I will respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner in writing.
Members have raised the issue of the high street. It is important to note that the temporary and unfunded—I repeat unfunded—40% RHL relief for 2025-26 will end on 31 March, and will be replaced by the permanent lower retail, hospitality and leisure tax rates from 1 April. The change, coinciding with the revaluation, means that some retail, hospitality and leisure properties will need greater support to help them transition to their new bill.
We have provided exactly that through expanding the supporting small business relief scheme, which will, as I outlined, cap bill increases for ratepayers who are losing some or all of their small business rate relief, rural rate relief, 2025-26 retail, hospitality and leisure relief, or 2023 supporting small business relief, at the higher of either £800 or the equivalent transitional relief cap. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley put it most ably: to vote against this particular measure would be to see businesses facing higher bills, which is not what the Government want.
I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Chanceller announced at the Budget, the business rates support package, of which this relief is a part, will help ratepayers facing bill increases as a result of the revaluation to move gradually over time to their new liability. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter today, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
It seems that the Committee may divide on the draft regulations, so let us be clear on what we are discussing. The motion being debated is that the Committee has considered the instrument; it is not a motion to approve the instrument. The House will decide whether to pass a motion to approve the instrument, if such a motion is put before it.
Question put.
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on these regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 16 December 2025 and are due to come into force on 1 April 2026. The purpose of the regulations is to amend the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 and the Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021 to update their fee structure. They do that by introducing a new medical devices registration fee, which provides additional funding for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s strengthened post-market surveillance of medical devices.
From 1 April 2026, the new annual fee will apportion the MHRA’s PMS costs more fairly across the sector and will replace the current per-application fee, which is insufficient to cover the costs of the post-market surveillance we wish to see in future. In 2026-27, the fee will be part-subsidised by the Department of Health and Social Care, with the intention that, subject to further ministerial and parliamentary approval, we will move to a fully cost-recovering annual fee model from 2027-28.
As to why the regulations are necessary in a modern MHRA regulatory framework, PMS refers to the work that the MHRA does to collect, review and act on safety and performance issues relating to medical devices on the market. The independent medicines and medical devices safety review highlighted the need for a higher-quality medical devices PMS framework. The Medical Devices (Post-market Surveillance Requirements) (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2024, which came into force on 16 June 2025, were a key part of the wider reforms developed in response to the recommendations in that review. The 2024 regulations strengthen the medical devices safety and surveillance framework, improve patient safety and support the MHRA’s more risk-proportionate and innovation-friendly approach to regulation. However, they are also estimated to increase PMS workload by 60% to 70%, at an annual cost of around £17 million, so finding a sustainable funding model is vital.
Historically, the PMS of MHRA devices has been funded mainly by subsidy from the Department of Health and Social Care, and partly by the current per-application fee model. Subsidising ongoing regulatory activity through general taxation is not the MHRA’s usual approach to fees and services. The usual approach is based on His Majesty’s Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance, which states that fees should be set on a full cost-recovery basis. Therefore, the regulations reduce subsidy by introducing a direct annual registration fee, so that those who benefit from access to the market fund the regulatory activity that underpins it.
On the intended operation of the regulations in practice, the new annual fee apportions the overall cost of the MHRA’s PMS activities by using the global medical device nomenclature system, which is a globally recognised system for naming and classifying medical devices. It is hierarchical, with broader groupings at higher levels and more granular entries at lower levels—for example, level 2 is a “category” and level 5 is an individual GMDN “term”.
Medical devices are registered with the MHRA using a GMDN code. Prior to placing devices on the market for use, the MHRA hosts a register of them called the device online registration system, or DORS—I am sorry, Ms Jardine, it is another acronym. The register is a valuable resource to monitor devices in circulation and to know when there are concerns about their uses. The proposed fee will be calculated using information from DORS; in practice, the MHRA will charge based on the number of chargeable GMDN level 2 categories that the manufacturer’s registrations fall into. It is important to note that if a manufacturer has multiple devices in the level 2 category, they will be charged only once a year for that category.
As the GMDN system is already in use for device registration, this approach also limits the administrative burden because fees can be calculated from existing data, rather than requiring additional information from the manufacturer, and is therefore less onerous. The MHRA consulted widely on the fee as part of its last statutory fees uplift and updated its approach based on stakeholder feedback. The consultation ran for two months, from August to October 2024, and was widely promoted and was supported by a small and medium-sized enterprise webinar.
The annual fee proposed in the consultation was £210 per GMDN level 5 term, using the most granular, fifth level of the GMDN structure. Most respondents did not support the proposal: 72% were opposed, 18% had no opinion and 10% supported it. Their concerns focused on the introduction of a new annual cost at short notice and the risk of a disproportionate impact on SMEs and areas that attract more GMDN registrations, such as in vitro diagnostics and—something that is close to my heart—surgical instruments.
In response to feedback, several changes were made. The MHRA set up a confidential, trusted advisory group of industry representatives to discuss the approach and seek further advice on implementation. That was welcomed by the members and provided useful feedback and assurance. The fee is being rolled out in a phased way to give the sector time to adapt and respond to its needs. The costs have been fully subsidised in 2025-26, and this instrument introduces a part-subsidised annual fee from 2026-27, with the intention to move to a fully cost-recovering annual fee model from 2027-28, subject, as I have said, to further ministerial review and parliamentary approval. The fee was remodelled to be charged at GMDN category level 2, rather than level 5, which is a higher, more general level, which will result in the costs being more equitably spread.
Overall, the MHRA estimates that, crucially, 56% of manufacturers will pay only £300 a year, and that 82% of manufacturers will pay no more than £900 a year. Crucially, SMEs are more likely to pay only £300 a year, as they are likely to have a more limited range of products compared with larger companies. To add further context, the medical technology sector generated £48 billion of turnover in 2023-24 and the total post-market surveillance cost was £17 million, representing 0.035% of total revenue. That is a good example of how consultation feedback and stakeholder engagement can be used to improve a proposal, in this case by modifying the fee structure to be more equitable and proportionate.
I recognise that manufacturers will always prefer to avoid additional costs, but I am satisfied that moving to a fair and, crucially, more predictable cost recovery approach to fund ongoing PMS is the right thing to do and that the changes made help to address the key concerns raised.
Finally, the MHRA has been working to help the wider medical technology sector to prepare for this change. The phased roll-out has given the sector time to adjust and get ready. The MHRA has published guidance explaining the new fee—how it will be calculated, what account holders need to do to ensure that their registration data is accurate, and how and when the payment needs to be made. The MHRA is improving the functionality of its DORS system so that account holders can see their chargeable GMDN categories, helping them to understand and check what they will be charged for in advance, to give them additional certainty. This new functionality will be ready for 1 April 2026. In the meantime, the MHRA has emailed all manufacturers directly with an estimated fee based on their registrations of November 2025.
In summary, these regulations introduce a necessary and fair annual registration fee from 1 April 2026 to help to fund the MHRA’s strengthened PMS ambitions, as well as its regulatory ambitions to make this country the world leader in life sciences and the medical technology sector. The approach has been improved in response to consultation feedback and is being introduced in a phased way to give maximum time to the sector to adapt, while ensuring that the MHRA has the resources it needs to protect patients and maintain confidence in our growing market. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I agree that post-market surveillance is important for patient safety, but predictability for businesses and reducing the burden on them is also important.
On 12 May 2025, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), said that the SI that we were discussing on that occasion—the Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2025—would increase the fees across the MHRA for devices from June. That included fees for various things, most of which were increased by between 9% and 16%, but some fees, such as for clinical investigation charges, were increased much more. She said at the time that this would
“ensure cost recovery until 2027”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 12 May 2025; c. 3.]
It is now January 2026 and the Government are back for more money. Why is that? They increased the fees for regulation 53 of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002—a regulation that the regulations that we are debating today also affect—from £240 to £261 back in June, and they plan to increase them again.
Let us consider why. In May, I raised some questions about the impact assessment produced for that legislation, for two reasons. First, it did not appear that the national insurance increase or the reduction in the national insurance threshold had been accounted for in the calculations. Secondly, the impact assessment assumed a 2.2% pay rise for civil servants for the years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Even then, that level was below inflation.
Regarding staff costs, the Minister in that debate said she thought they were NHS staff, but she later wrote to me to confirm that the national insurance contribution hikes were payable by the MHRA because the staff were civil servants. In response to my written questions, the Minister declined to say whether national insurance was included, but assured the House that the MHRA had “modelled…future costs”, that the uplift would be enough until April 2027 and that the MHRA would find “efficiency savings” if required to manage any future shortfall.
I asked the MHRA, by way of a freedom of information request, what increases it faced in national insurance costs as a result of reductions in the thresholds and increasing the rate. It said that it faced a yearly cost of £1.9 million. I also asked:
“What estimate has the MHRA made of the additional cost arising from the difference between”
the pay rise estimated in the impact assessment and the actual pay rise that was given. The answer was £1.2 million. That is a shortfall of £3.1 million, or 20% of the increase in fees from the last SI.
The MHRA said at that time that
“we believe that, while this extra cost”
—national insurance—
“was not included, our fees cost-recovery methodology and approved fees are still sufficient to cover projected costs over the next two years, without any negative impact on service delivery or financial sustainability.”
That letter was dated 1 August 2025, which is after that PMS legislation came into effect. There was a significant difference between the calculations that the MHRA produced and the £3.1 million figure, which raises questions about their accuracy and the grip that the Government have on the detail and our public finances.
The Government are now here again, wanting to increase the registration fee by an additional 15% to £300, but this time with no impact assessment. The regulations that we are discussing today not only increase the registration fee by 15% from April 2026, but add a maintenance fee of £300 for each device in a category listed, starting with
“the fee period immediately following that in which the person paid the fee for the device registration…due on the first day of each…period”.
That would seem to mean that if a device is registered between now and April, they pay £261 now and £300 on 1 April, which will presumably incentivise delaying any current registrations. I can see that the Minister has adjusted for this in future years, but he does not seem to have done so for those registering this year.
I am interested in how sure the Minister is that his estimate for the increase in the post-market surveillance of £17 million is robust, given that we are back six months after the Government were sure they had enough. This year, the de minimis assessment says that £6 million will come from grant in aid from DHSC, £4.9 million from DHSC financial support and £6.1 million from the fee income. The current registration fees are predicted to produce £1.6 million, leaving a difference of £4.5 million to be covered by fee increases.
The de minimis assessment’s best estimate says that the MHRA needs to make £4.3 million of that, which is £300 a year on each of the devices, in the way that the Minister described. However, it also says that
“we plan to seek approval for full cost recovery fee for subsequent years”,
which the Minister has confirmed is his plan today. Why is that not in today’s regulations? Is that because it would have required an impact assessment? How much will this cost businesses? This will be a further £10.9 million and, if £300 a year will get the Minister £6.1 million, then for £17 million he will need about £836. That is a massive increase on businesses coming down the track next year, which I do not think he has fully considered.
Burdens on businesses are important because they stifle activity and innovation. This Government have already added significant burdens to businesses: higher taxes and national insurance rates, the reduction of the national insurance threshold, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and, for family-owned businesses, the business property relief. They are now adding further costs, and I am concerned about the effects on innovation and early access to devices for patients.
What is the Minister’s assessment of international comparators? In recent times we have seen a loss of pharma investment in the UK. Will the extra fees this year, and the prospect of hikes next year, deter investment? There is no impact assessment, so how can we be sure? I am particularly concerned about small businesses and microbusinesses. The de minimis assessment says that it is not possible to exempt microbusinesses. Why is it not possible? It is a political choice not to exempt them, but it is certainly possible to produce regulations that do.
As the Minister described, the consultation revealed widespread concern, with only 10% support. Changes have been made following discussion with a trusted advisory group. Who is in the trusted advisory group? Whose voices from micro and small businesses were heard in that group? There has been no further consultation and no impact assessment on the regulations the Minister has presented today.
I also have some specific questions about obsolescence. Do businesses need to pay a registration maintenance fee for putting a product on the market to sell or lease? That was previously a single charge that lasted for the product’s lifespan, however long that would be. There is now an annual fee. What provision is made for the clinical use and post-market surveillance of items that cease to be registered because a company goes bust or stops selling the item? Can the item still be used? How would a clinician know that the lapse of a previous licence had stopped, particularly if it was a personal piece of medical equipment such as a stethoscope? How does that affect post-market surveillance?
Could registration be discontinued for some items, where someone has several categories possible, in order to register another category and force obsolescence? For example, I have seen one case where the failure to produce spare parts lead to an entire trust having to replace every single defibrillator, at great expense. If a company went bankrupt and was no longer able to pay its post-market surveillance fee, the item would no longer be registered. How would that work?
I also want to ask about categories. Originally, as described in the consultation, the GMDN category was level 5, which is extremely specific. It is now level 2, which is better, but microbusinesses still pay the same charges as larger businesses, so a business selling one product would pay the same as a business selling dozens of products in the same category. Also, there is no accounting for the size of the product or the surveillance required. For example, the charge for an MRI scanner, worth £2 million, would be the same for as a single-use scalpel worth less than £1. Is that fair? I appreciate that people may sell more scalpels than scanners, but what about an umbilical artery dilator, of which not too many are used, at £24 each? Producers of inexpensive but highly specific and useful devices may be disadvantaged. What will the effects be on costs for patients? Again, there is no impact assessment, so we do not know. How much of the cost produced by these regulations does the Minister expect to be transferred back to the Government in paying for more expensive devices?
Overall, there are many more questions raised than answered by these regulations. Patient safety is paramount. There is, of course, a cost to ensure that devices are properly and proportionately regulated, but the Government also need to be responsible and careful with money. As they are, the regulations are a blunt tool adding costs to businesses and a promise of much more cost to come. There is no proper impact assessment, and there is a risk to small businesses and microbusinesses and to inexpensive, low-volume items. As such, I cannot support the regulations.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I am very glad to be here to speak about medical devices and life sciences, because not only are they about solving many of the problems we are facing as a country, such as antimicrobial resistance in treating diseases, but they are a fantastic way of growing our economy. We welcome the fact that the Government acknowledged that the initial plans would have disproportionately affected small and medium-sized businesses. Like all SMEs around the country, they are struggling with everything from soaring energy prices to national insurance and Brexit red tape.
It is vital that we reach a balance, and the Minister spoke well on this. It is imperative that funding is sufficient for the MHRA to regulate the market effectively, and we do not want to deter medical technology companies from investing in the UK. That is why we have called continually for a bespoke customs union with the EU to slash red tape and for a major boost to research and development funding, all of which would hugely benefit the life sciences sector.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government are fully confident—with some sort of impact assessment or study to show this—that the adapted fee structure will not be overly punitive to business, and SMEs in particular, and will not end up inadvertently reducing the investment in and growth of medtech in the UK?
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I am very pleased that the Government have taken this approach of listening carefully, responding and trying to build a solution that is manageable and predictable, with a phased transition. As an engineer, I know that safety of products is absolutely paramount. Features such as post-market surveillance are incredibly important, along with the rest of the good regulation system. I am therefore pleased that the Government have taken this seriously, with careful thought and while ensuring that, primarily, patients remain safe.
I will raise one specific case with particularly significant implications for patients. People who rely on continuous insulin therapy, such as those with type 1 diabetes, depend on devices—insulin pumps, primarily—to live their daily lives. Their interaction with the pump is frequent—the relationship is deep—and the device plays a significant role in their life. People will often keep an insulin pump for a number of years, becoming very familiar with its operation. It is important to note that such devices are increasing in sophistication.
In recent years, we have seen some incredible advances in technology, such as continuous glucose monitoring, and there are now more and more pumps on the market with closed-loop control, where the delivery of insulin responds in real time to the patient’s blood glucose level. That has been a transformative technological step forward, but it puts a lot more sophistication into the devices and requires a lot more integration with other devices, such as the CGM devices. That means that patient’s relationship with the pump gets even more sophisticated and deep, and their ability to manage a healthy lifestyle depends critically on the device and their relationship with it. Increasingly, too, patients are dependent on an online platform and a continuous service agreement to maintain the use of the systems and their integrations.
My concern is that if we now introduce a way for a registration to expire early, or for its maintenance not to be renewed, that could create a sense of insecurity or some practical insecurities for patients with insulin pumps. Despite the fact that for an individual medical device, the fees are indeed modest—especially when put in context—we can also imagine situations in which unscrupulous manufacturers might decide that withdrawing a product early suits their product road map and their profit margins. It is important that patients understand that they are safe, that we have mitigated such risks, that patients have control over when and how they change their pump technology, and that it will not be taken away from them for any reason, but in particular for commercial reasons outside their control.
I am confident that the risks can be managed and mitigated, alongside the draft regulations as they into effect, working with the NHS. I am very grateful for the open and collaborative response that I have had from the Minister and the Government up to now on this topic. I put it on the record that it is important that we investigate the potential impacts on this particularly vulnerable group of users, to ensure that they are not compromised or put at a disadvantage as we introduce these important and valuable regulations.
Dr Ahmed
I turn first to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Like me, she is a scholar of medicine, and she practiced in the NHS throughout all 14 years of the last Government. She will know, possibly at first hand, that the MHRA as a regulatory body has not been fit for purpose for a long time. It has lagged behind the inventions and innovations now available to patients, particularly in medical technology. She will also know it is this Government who are placing the MHRA at the service of patients by being bold in our reforming agenda and our leadership in regulating medical technology.
The proof point of that reform is our consultation with trusted groups, including trade associations such as the Association of British HealthTech Industries, the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association and the British Dental Association, all of which were consulted extensively over the course of these regulatory proposals, and with which I engage on a regular basis to garner their support, so that at every step of the way our life sciences sector plan is facilitated by our regulatory institutions and authorities. Indeed, the MHRA was present last week in front of a number of innovative biotechnology companies, whose message was loud and clear: they view the UK’s regulatory framework as first in class, innovative and forward-thinking, and they therefore see investing in our country as an attractive proposition.
On the impact assessment, I assure the Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Winchester that we are not avoiding an impact assessment. In fact, we are supporting industry with a phased approach to fees, and we are open to an ongoing consultation and dialogue as this fee structure comes into place next year and the year after.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is a learned Member of this House, and I entirely take on board his comments regarding insulin pumps. Wherever possible, in the discussions that I have had with my officials and the MHRA, we have said that this fee structure should include the totality of a device, rather than its component parts. I am very happy to take his comments back to my officials, so that we can make sure that he and his constituents are satisfied that there are no unintended consequences in that regard. I thank all Members for their contributions, and thank you, Ms Jardine.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is making a great speech, but he is not answering lots of the questions—I appreciate that he may not have all the answers. Can he commit to answering them by letter? Will he also talk about the possibility of obsolescence? If an item ceases to be registered—he is encouraging people to deregister things that they are no longer selling—can it still be used in the NHS? How would a doctor know whether something had ever been registered in the past and was safe?
Dr Ahmed
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to give her a fuller answer. She knows that procurement in different parts of the NHS rightly reflects local clinical practices, although there are overarching national frameworks for buying such products. Innovation lends itself to the fact that, over time, patients will want to choose and move on to newer forms of devices that treat their conditions in line with the latest clinical evidence. I am very happy to write to her more extensively on obsolescence and her other questions.
I would like to address some points made on the following topics: the impact on SMEs; the impact on market attractiveness more extensively; GMDN suitability and transparency; clarity on costs; and the evaluation of value for money. I also want to make some points regarding Northern Ireland. On SMEs, as the Opposition spokesperson highlighted, I recognise that new regulatory costs can be felt more sharply by smaller firms, and the MHRA has listened carefully. That is why the fee has been designed to spread costs more equitably across the sector, and the majority will pay only £300 per year.
Following consultation feedback, charging is based on the number of GMDN level 2 categories that a manufacturer’s registered device falls into, rather than the much more granular level 5. That matters for SMEs because they are more likely to have closely related product variants that may attract multiple level 5 terms, but sit more generally within a single level 2 category. Under this approach, multiple products in one level 2 category are therefore charged once per year, reducing the need for repeat charges on minor product variations.
The MHRA estimates that around 56% of manufacturers will pay a single unit fee of £300 a year, and SMEs are most likely to fall into that group, because they typically have a narrower product range than the larger companies. The MHRA is not offering waivers or special SME rates. The charge is designed to be proportionate, and any waiver would simply shift costs elsewhere. The intention is to keep the charge predictable and proportionate, and to phase it in.
Finally, SMEs stand to benefit from a stronger PMS framework, leading to earlier identification of issues, fewer surprises and a more risk-proportionate and predictable regulatory approach that supports responsible innovation. I must make it clear that we are not asking for more money: we are simply changing the MHRA’s regulatory framework to put it on a more sustainable footing so that in the future it is less reliant on the taxpayer and, therefore, more pro-innovation, more pro-market and better able to have a healthier commercial relationship with new and established companies.
On innovation and UK attractiveness, a robust PMS framework is not a brake on innovation—far from it. It helps to make the market more predictable and investable, as per my conversations over the last couple of weeks with major and smaller biotech industry firms. In developing this instrument, we have ensured that the Secretary of State must have regard to three considerations set out in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021: safety, availability, and the attractiveness of the whole of the United Kingdom as a place to research, develop, manufacture and, crucially, supply medical devices. This fee supports safety by ensuring the MHRA has sustainable funding for strengthened PMS, so that risks can be identified and acted on sooner. It supports availability by underpinning a stable and predictable system of oversight that helps to maintain continued safe access to effective devices.
Dr Johnson
Will this post-market surveillance continue if a device ceases to be registered?
Dr Ahmed
The anticipation would be that post-market surveillance will continue if devices are still used in a clinical setting.
PMS supports UK attractiveness by strengthening confidence in the market for patients, clinicians and investors, and by resourcing a more risk-proportionate, innovation-friendly approach to regulation, including making better use of real-world evidence and enabling more flexible and efficient regulatory burdens over time. A stronger PMS framework will also reduce uncertainty for innovators by enabling earlier proportionate action and helping to avoid sudden escalations that can disrupt plans or supply. By improving real-world evidence and post-market detail, it will also strengthen confidence in the UK as a place to generate evidence, invest and bring new devices to patients.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, asked questions about global medical device nomenclature as the basis for apportioning costs. GMDN is internationally recognised for naming and grouping medical devices and is already used for UK device registration through the DORS, since 2018. Using GMDN categories means that the fee can be calculated from information that manufacturers already provide, making it less onerous, rather than creating a new system for reporting requirements purely for charging purposes. That helps to minimise the administrative burden across the sector, including for SMEs.
Category-based charging is also a practical and broadly proportionate proxy for the breadth of devices and types a manufacturer places on the market and, therefore, the likely level of PMS activity. It avoids a per-device approach and the complexity and burden of trying to calculate an actual PMS cost for each manufacturer.
On transparency, the MHRA is improving DORS, so as of 1 April account holders can see the chargeable GMDN level 2 categories linked to their registrations. Ahead of the go-live, MHRA has written directly to all manufacturers with their estimated fees so that they can check in advance their registration data and plan their budgets accordingly.
On clarity of costs, the consultation proposed an annual fee of £210 per GMDN term at level 5. The feedback was clear that that would be disproportionate, because level 5 is more granular in some areas than in others, exposing SMEs and manufacturers of devices such as in vitro diagnostics and surgical instruments to higher costs. In response, the MHRA redesigned the fee, so its charging is based now on the GMDN level 2 category, which is much broader, and consistent across product ranges. The unit price is higher because there are fewer level 2 categories than level 5, so the amount to recover is spread across fewer units, and the cost base has been updated to reflect inflation since the consultation.
The fee is also being introduced with a phased approach to give manufacturers time to adapt. The PMS has been fully subsidised by the DHSC in the year 2025-26, and this instrument introduces a part-subsidised annual fee model by 2026-27. The intention is to move to a fully cost recovery annual fee from 2027-28, once the new arrangements are embedded and a full impact assessment can be prepared.
On value for money and evaluation, the main objective of strengthening post-market surveillance is to improve health outcomes by increasing the quality and quantity of safety and performance data, and reducing the time from identifying a risk to making a corrective action. That supports patient safety and continued access to safe, effective devices and enables a more risk-proportionate, pro-innovation approach to regulation by strengthening the evidence base and supporting earlier proportionate action where needed.
Dr Johnson
If a device ceases to be registered, can a doctor still use it in the NHS—legally?
Dr Ahmed
As the hon. Lady knows, doctors are able, in certain circumstances, to prescribe unlicensed treatments to their patients if they feel it is a proportionate act to take. It is not something that is in guidelines or routinely recommended, but is at times at the discretion of individual clinicians. Clearly, that would be a peripheral activity, and something that could be looked at by local governance processes; but I am confident that these regulations strengthen the current post-market surveillance, so we are moving to a place of greater safety for the totality of the system.
The fee funds around 102 staff working across key areas, including medical device safety and surveillance yellow cards, software and diagnostics, and compliance and safety data. Roughly three quarters of these posts are existing roles, previously funded through the DHSC subsidy, with around one quarter being new posts that the MHRA expects to fill by the end of March 2026. Performance will be monitored through indicators such as the volume and quality of vigilance reporting, field safety corrective action and trend reporting, signal detection, and timeliness from the initial signal through to alerts and the corrective action being applied. The MHRA is committed to strengthening its internal metrics and producing new KPIs to track performance. These will be reviewed through the biennial fees uplift process to ensure that costs remain efficient and proportionate, and to avoid over or under-recovery.
I turn briefly to Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, the regulatory position is different from that of Great Britain: under the Windsor framework, the EU devices regulations apply in Northern Ireland. This means that devices placed on the NI market must meet relevant EU requirements. The European Commission has recently announced that EUDAMED registration will become mandatory by May 2026. EUDAMED is the European Commission’s database that collects and stores data about devices on the EU and NI market. It is free for users, as it is funded centrally by the European Commission. In practice, that means that manufacturers, or their representatives, of devices—other than those that are custom-made—that are placing them on the EU or NI markets must register their devices on EUDAMED from 28 May 2026.
Out of a desire to avoid duplicative obligations, we are taking forward a separate piece of regulation that will mean that on 28 May 2026, devices other than custom-made ones, placed on the NI market will need to be registered with EUDAMED and will no longer need to be registered with MHRA, so the fee will not apply. Under EU regulations, custom-made devices are excluded from EUDAMED. They will still need to be registered with the MHRA, and will incur the fee.
Taken together, these regulations put the funding of the strengthened PMS on a clearer, more sustainable footing, so that those who benefit from access to the UK market contribute fairly to the ongoing regulatory work that supports their access. The fee has been redesigned in response to consultation feedback, is being phased in to give the sector time to adapt, and uses existing registration data to keep the administrative burden on business low.
Ultimately, this is about maintaining confidence in the safety and performance of medical devices, supporting continued access, and ensuring that the MHRA has the capacity to act quickly and proportionately if issues arise. I am happy to write to hon. Members if there any detailed points that I have not addressed; I have taken on board the comments of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and I am happy to write to her and the Committee. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to support these regulations for the sake of patient safety and our commercial environment, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put.
Bank closure in Penzance
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Animal Welfare Strategy for England
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the animal welfare strategy for England.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and to have secured my very first Westminster Hall debate on animal welfare, which really means something to me. I am sure that colleagues present are equally compassionate and animal friendly.
The UK has a proud and long-standing history of championing animal welfare. Back in 1822, this country led the world with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, the first ever piece of animal welfare legislation anywhere on the globe. That legacy continues today in the incredible organisations we are fortunate to have here in the UK: the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Cats Protection; the Blue Cross; the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, which provides free veterinary services to sick or injured pets; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; and South Derbyshire’s very own Wonky Pets Rescue in Swadlincote.
I am immensely proud that the Labour Government are committed to delivering the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. Whether we are talking about cats and dogs who share our homes, the working animals who give disabled people independence, or those who support our police force and airport staff in keeping us safe, we owe animals a huge debt of gratitude.
I grew up with pets, and until recent years my daughter did, too. Sadly, the demands of this job and the lifestyle it requires—and my personal lifestyle—make having pets impractical for me at the moment. It would feel selfish. But I have no doubt that my time will come again. I see how my mum and stepdad organise their entire lives around their little dogs Rosie and Oliver, which is why I often smile when people talk about pet owners—because in reality they own us. Or rather, they are family members.
Animals are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, fear and joy. That places a responsibility on us all to protect them. It is reassuring that 85% of UK adults agree that we have a moral duty to safeguard animal welfare.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for animals and for the people in her constituency, and I am grateful that she secured this debate. I want to thank all my constituents who have written to me to advocate for animals. We are clearly a nation of animal lovers. Last year, I wrote to the Government to request a ban on barbaric electric-shock collars and to raise concerns about the Warwickshire hunt and the damage it does to local wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that the animal welfare strategy will tackle those concerns, and that we must do all we can to protect our precious animals?
Samantha Niblett
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know is a big animal lover herself—we certainly have that in common—that the welfare strategy will tackle those concerns. I will address some of those points later in my speech.
We have a moral duty to safeguard animal welfare, and most people agree with us, so I warmly welcome the Labour Government’s recent animal welfare strategy. What a wonderful Christmas present it was for so many of us. The strategy sets out clear ambitions, to be achieved by 2030, on improving the lives of companion animals, wild animals, farmed animals and animals overseas. It commits to addressing loopholes around breeding, to banning snare traps, to delivering on our manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting and to introduce standards for the humane killing of fish.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I feel the need to say that, like 52% of the population, I am a dog owner myself—I have the wonderful Nico Ingham—and I was so pleased to see that the Government will consult on introducing a registration scheme for dog breeders to get rid of dodgy breeders and puppy farms, which many of my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages have written to me about. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strategy is a crucial first step towards a kinder future for dogs throughout the country?
Samantha Niblett
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is a crucial first step. I cannot understand how anybody in all good conscience can run a puppy farm, but I understand how some people have the wool pulled over their eyes to buy from one. If we take away puppy farms as an option, those people will not be tricked.
The scale of this issue is vast. There are an estimated 35 million pets living in the UK, with the pet care market worth £8.2 billion and forecast to grow by 7% annually. At the same time, there are around 150 million farmed animals in England at any one time, comprising 22 million cattle, sheep and pigs and 133 million poultry. The livestock sector contributes £20.1 billion to the UK economy, thanks to the hard work of our farmers. While strengthening animal welfare standards here in the UK is vital, this must go hand in hand with Baroness Batters’s report and with genuine partnership working with farmers, who are already driving standards upwards. Crucially, we must ensure that they are properly supported and paid for this work.
I welcome the Government’s decision to transition to non-cage systems and to consult on phasing out enriched colony cages for laying hens. I support Compassion in World Farming’s “End the Cage Age” campaign. Cages severely restrict hens’ movement, preventing them from running, flapping their wings, dust bathing and foraging—behaviours that are fundamental to their welfare. At my most recent coffee morning in Burnaston, it was good to speak about farming again with my constituent Angela Sargent, this time about her concerns regarding salmonella in eggs from imported caged birds. I never buy eggs from caged birds, but I fully appreciate that not everyone can afford to make that choice and must take the cheapest option available.
This issue also has serious implications for British farmers, who are placed at a competitive disadvantage by the tariff-free import of eggs from caged Ukrainian hens. The same point applies for meat imports.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart and to those of so many across my constituency. Will she join me in paying tribute to the local campaigners who have helped to keep these issues at the heart of the agenda, even while the Conservative Government was very slow to act?
Samantha Niblett
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As MPs, we are pulled in every direction by many people, and it is hard to be in all places at all times, but the issues that cut through the most are the ones that are campaigned on the hardest and the heaviest. I am super grateful to the campaign groups that have helped to shape the animal welfare strategy.
I am reassured that the Labour Government recognise animal welfare as a global issue and have committed to continuing to work with organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Trade Organisation to champion high standards internationally and promote best practice. Public support for this approach is overwhelming: a 2021 National Farmers Union survey found that 86% of respondents believe that animal welfare standards for imports should match those in the UK, while a Which? survey found that 87% of people agree that imported food should meet our animal welfare standards.
Each year, approximately 40 million to 45 million male chicks from conventional laying-hen breeds are culled within 12 to 36 hours of hatching. It is encouraging that the UK egg industry is exploring technology to sex eggs before chicks are born, with the aim of eliminating the need for this practice. While I welcome the Government’s ambition to end the killing of day-old chicks, it is essential that we work closely with the farming industry to ensure that the costs are not unfairly passed on to farmers and that any transition happens on a realistic timeline.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. An assessment of male chick culling found that the cost to introduce in-ovo sexing of eggs in this country would be approximately 1p per egg. I visited a facility in the Netherlands on Monday, and it costs approximately €0.01 per egg there.
Samantha Niblett
I did not know that fact, and I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing it. One of the challenges is the lack of profit in farming. I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have committed to help our farmers to become more profitable. One pence per egg sounds very little, but it has a heavy impact on farmers’ productivity and profitability.
Similarly, we must listen carefully to farmers when considering how to move away from the use of farrowing crates for sows. While the crates are designed to protect piglets against being crushed, they also significantly restrict the sows’ movement and raise serious welfare concerns.
For many animal lovers, perhaps the most challenging part of the strategy is the issue of slaughter, even for those of us who eat meat. I will give a trigger warning now, because I am going to talk about things that might upset a few people.
Each year, just over 1 billion meat chickens are reared and slaughtered in the UK. I agree with the Government that all animals should be spared avoidable pain and distress at the point of killing, while also respecting the right of people to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. For example, a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter to render them unconscious and insensible to pain. Slaughtermen are required to check for signs of consciousness between stunning and death. Certification bodies, such as the Halal Food Authority, enforce the standards through regular audits and inspections, combining ancient principles with modern safeguards. However, “a significant proportion” does not mean all animals, and I understand and share the concerns of those who are worried about the percentage that are not stunned before slaughter.
On the difficult subject of end of life for animals, I was grateful to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation for inviting me to a game dinner last November. I feel far more comfortable eating meat from animals that have lived a full life in open spaces in our beautiful Derbyshire countryside, and whose deaths were carried out swiftly by trained conservationists who play a key role in conservation, pest control and habitat management. I am grateful to those who help to manage our countryside and parks responsibly and humanely, even for animals we do not eat, such as grey squirrels that damage young trees.
To turn back to pets, I met vets Kathryn and Kieran Patel back in October—
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
We have seen a dramatic increase in the price of vet bills over the past couple of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need better regulation, more transparency and to bring bills down for our constituents?
Samantha Niblett
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who picked the right moment because I was just about to address that issue. I met vets Kathryn and Keiran Patel in October at their newly opened independent practice in Bretby. They would like the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to be updated. They shared with me concerning insights about how a small number of large corporates dominate the sector, particularly in relation to fees and prescription charges.
In December, the Competition and Markets Authority published the provisional findings of its investigation of veterinary services for household pets, and it identified competition concerns. Many pet owners would welcome clearer pricing for common services, capped prescription charges and transparency around practice ownership. That said, the broader challenges facing veterinary practices and the cost pressures on pet owners deserve a debate in their own right. My good hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has been doing a huge amount of work in this space.
My constituent, David Llewellyn of Walton-on-Trent, is a strong advocate for reforming the regulations around puppy farming. I am delighted that our manifesto committed to ending puppy farming and puppy smuggling.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Puppy farming is a cruel practice, with puppies taken early from their mothers, kept in poor conditions and sold through misleading adverts. It also creates distress for the families who unknowingly buy dogs raised like that. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the animal welfare strategy’s commitment to end puppy farming, and call on the Government to ensure that the practice is ended as soon as possible?
Samantha Niblett
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the Government for putting an end to puppy farming. As we discussed earlier with other concerned colleagues, it is barbaric. So many people who buy from puppy farms have been tricked into doing so. It is absolutely right to put an end to it.
I am proud that the Labour Government passed the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which bans the import of dogs and cats under six months old, those that have been declawed or had their ears cropped, and those that are heavily pregnant. However, my constituent Lexi Ireland is vice-chair of Basil’s Forever Sofa, which rescues Romanian dogs and rehomes them in the UK, and she contacted me with concerns that, unless carefully drafted, the legislation could inadvertently prevent legitimate charities from rescuing dogs with cropped ears or docked tails. I wrote to Baroness Hayman, who reassured me that all necessary exemptions will be provided through secondary legislation. I also welcome the Act’s power to prevent the supply to the UK of low-welfare pets, such as stray animals brought back from overseas holidays.
Cats Protection has raised concerns that the strategy does not go far enough in delivering what it describes as
“meaningful protection for cats and kittens”,
particularly around irresponsible breeding, including the breeding of bully cats. It has also called for a single point of search for cat microchipping—I must confess that I assumed that already existed.
I welcome the Government’s decision to reconvene the responsible dog ownership taskforce, which provides an opportunity to reduce dog attacks and improve safety in public areas. Although I believe that the previous Government made the right decision at the time in introducing the XL bully ban, given the tragic loss of life we were seeing, I recognise the heartbreak experienced by responsible pet owners whose well-loved dogs were cherished family members.
I share the Government’s concerns about the welfare implications of e-collars, and I support positive, reward-based training as the preferred approach. Later in this Parliament, we will consult on whether to ban e-collars, following the example already set in Wales.
The Hunting Act 2004 is 20 years old, yet concerns persist about illegal hunting taking place under the guise of trail hunting. I have heard from farmers and landowners who oppose trail hunting due to the land damage but feel under pressure to allow it. Trail hunting was banned on National Trust land in 2022, due to animal welfare concerns, and Forestry England and several local authorities and private estates followed suit, often citing environmental damage. I am glad we are banning it altogether.
I also support the Labour Government’s decision to end the use of snares. A YouGov poll in January 2025 found that 71% of adults in England believe snares should be illegal. I welcome the review of other traps, including those used indoors, while noting concerns raised by the British Pest Control Association that banning smaller traps could increase chemical use, which is a concern more broadly. My constituent Harriet Redfern contacted me after losing her beloved dog, because she believed that non-pet-friendly pesticides were to blame. Others have had similar experiences, including Lisa, who shared her anguish with me during a horse-safety ride that I attended, organised by Councillor Ann Hughes, chair of Overseal parish council.
I welcome the strategy’s commitment to exploring measures to prevent equines from being exported for slaughter, but road safety is an urgent issue in the UK that affects horses and their riders, who are disproportionally women. Mary Holland, who invited me to the horse-safety rides, is part of the Pass Wide and Slow campaign, which calls for better driver education to ensure that horses, riders and motorists are kept safe. I am sure campaigners would welcome provisions on that in future iterations of the animal welfare strategy.
I was struck by something that Sally Barker wrote on my Facebook post when I announced the strategy before Christmas. She said that
“whilst I applaud this, we are quite clearly no longer a nation of animal lovers, if we were, this would not be necessary”.
That is a valid point, and it really made me sad. There will always be awful people who do not treat animals right, so I am glad that our animal welfare strategy seeks to provide protections. It balances compassion with practicality, ambition with partnership and ethics with economic reality. From pets and farm animals to wildlife and working animals, from domestic change to global leadership, the strategy sets a clear direction of travel.
Animal welfare is not a niche issue: it speaks to who we are as a society in the main. I am proud that the Labour Government are rising to the challenge, listening to constituents, working with farmers and experts, and placing animal welfare firmly at the heart of public policy. I look forward to continuing this work and to seeing our commitments translated into a real and lasting change for animals across the UK and beyond.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am immediately imposing a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, so not every Member will get to speak. However, if Members keep their speeches shorter, more people will get in.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this fantastic debate. My inbox is regularly more full of animal welfare issues than anything else. I have been contacted by residents such as Becky Wood, who invited me to her home to visit her rehomed donkeys and chickens and taste her vegan brownies, and many others who are really pleased to see this animal welfare strategy but are impatient for action to follow.
I welcome the commitment to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. I will leave it to other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who have expertise in this matter, to talk about that, but I want to make a plea on behalf of pets who are too old to insure or whose families simply cannot afford the premiums. My constituent Vivenne told me that
“the whole business model appears to be set up to milk insurance companies but the ones who cannot insure their dogs have to find the ever increasing costs themselves. We will always find the funds as it is not our rescue dogs’ fault that they both need care but we object to being unfairly ‘fleeced’.”
Concerns have been raised by vets in my constituency about their ability to operate alongside huge corporations. Given the changing landscape for our country, I hope that that will be treated with the urgency that it deserves.
Many vets work in cattle and farming, and I welcome the proposal about caged animals and male chicks. My brother Spencer’s first holiday job in the 1980s was on a battery chicken farm. I do not think that any of us had any idea what that was, but I recall him lasting just a matter of days there, because the brutality of the place and the overwhelming stench of ammonia led to the very swift decision that he simply could not work there.
Will Stone
Speaking about farming, my friend Kyle is opening up a company called Hoxton Farms, which is developing lab-grown meat. I invite everyone in the Chamber to come along in March to our open day and give it a try.
Vikki Slade
I have to say that that makes me feel a little queasy, but perhaps I will push my own boundaries.
Living on the edge of the countryside, seeing cows and sheep is an everyday occurrence that helps us to understand where our food comes from, and we are all used to mammals in our homes. Fish and sea creatures, however, do not have the same association, despite the very hard work of Pixar in bringing Nemo and Dory to life.
My daughter Abbi is a Young Dragon, a sea kayak ambassador and expedition leader. On her trips around the islands of Scotland and elsewhere, she has witnessed fish farms that are beyond the sight of most people. She described the water as being almost solid with fish. She explained that disease can spread fast when insufficient space is provided, and she shared her deep concern about the risk that poorly managed fish farms can have a detrimental effect on the wider ecosystem. I welcome the commitment to improve fish welfare, but can the Minister confirm if that will go beyond the nets and fences of the fish farms?
There are many more issues that I would love to talk about: speeding up the end of animal testing to deliver a truly cruelty-free UK, the absence of a ban on trophy hunting imports in the animal welfare strategy, and the consistent refusal, despite my many questions in Parliament and in writing, to make wildlife crimes notifiable. It is ridiculous that people who commit crimes against wild animals are treated less harshly than those who commit crimes against our pets. I really hope that the animal welfare strategy is the first step, and not the final destination. I look forward to hearing more about what legislation will follow in the King’s Speech, so that we can actually deliver change for our animals, wherever they are.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this important debate. There are many Members present for this debate, so we can tell how popular it is.
I welcome the ambition of the Government’s animal welfare strategy for England, but it could be strengthened further. It contains important commitments that, if delivered, could significantly improve the lives of millions of animals. I am a long-standing supporter of animal rights, and I have consistently raised these issues with current and previous Governments. As a Labour MP, I pay tribute to the work of the Labour Animal Welfare Society.
In the past four or five weeks alone, around 7% of correspondence to my constituency office has related to agriculture, animals, food and rural affairs. The most common issues include calls to end animal testing, phase out cages for farm animals, strengthen hunting bans and bring an end to trophy hunting. I welcome that the strategy responds to many of those concerns, particularly by making it a key priority to end the use of crates and cages, and by committing to a ban on trail hunting and the use of snare traps.
Given the scale of ambition in the strategy, and the Government’s stated aim to deliver it by 2030, prioritisation will be essential. Farmed animals must be at the heart of delivery, simply because of the sheer numbers involved and the scale of potential welfare gains. Overall, the strategy represents a significant opportunity to transform animal welfare in England, but ambition must now be matched with urgency, clear timelines and strong legislation.
My time is limited, so I will cover just a few points. The Government have proposed a consultation on banning electric-shock collars but, sadly, there is no firm commitment and there are further delays. I want to see an immediate ban on the use and sale of electric-shock collars for pets. Furthermore, cats are bred without adequate safeguards. Many female cats are in ill health and are overbred, and male stud cats experience poor welfare. The Government must do more to address harmful breeding practices.
Lots of organisations and charities have raised concerns about microchipping. The strategy should commit to introducing a single point of search for microchipping databases. As the strategy notes, there are 23 databases, so anyone scanning a cat may have to check multiple databases. The Government must urgently include provision for a single point of search.
Some Members have already covered the issue of banning trophy hunting imports. I find it disappointing that a ban was not part of the animal welfare strategy. A recent survey shows that more than 80% of people support a ban. The Government should introduce a Bill as a priority. On 29 August 2025, I tabled written parliamentary question 71178. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), responded:
“The Government committed to banning the import of hunting trophies”.
I want to see urgent progress on that.
Early-day motion 86, “Ban on trophy hunting imports”, was tabled on 19 October 2021 by our former colleague Sir David Amess, who was tragically killed; I pay tribute to all his work on animal welfare issues over many years. I was the second person to sign the early-day motion so when, sadly, Sir David was brutally killed, I was asked to take it over—my record on this issue goes back a long time. I urge the Government to push a bit harder.
On male chick culling, the Vegetarian Society last year launched a campaign called Ban Hatch and Dispatch. Approximately 45 million male chicks are culled each year, primarily through gassing. I urge the Government to ban male chick culling and support the smooth implementation of mandated in-ovo sexing in British hatcheries.
I thank all the organisations that campaign on these issues, in particular Humane World for Animals, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Compassion in World Farming, which have supplied us all with briefings.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing the debate.
There is much in the animal welfare strategy on which I think we can agree. I welcome the moves to ban puppy farming and introduce a close season for hares. However, there are also areas of great concern. We are in danger of effectively exporting many jobs and much of our farming industry abroad. We are increasingly going to see low-welfare standard meat and eggs coming into this country. I urge the Government to address that.
I think all Members in the debate welcome any improvement in animal welfare standards in our farming industry. However, we do not wish to see low-welfare meat coming into this country with the consequence that our industry is replaced, British jobs and British producers are taken away, and more animals are killed at welfare standards that are substantially below the welfare standards we have in this country today. I certainly do not think that that is the Government’s intention, but there is a danger that it is what we will deliver. I urge the Minister to ensure that any products imported into this country match the welfare standards we expect of our farmers in the United Kingdom.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report highlighting the massive illegal imports of meat that already occurred when his party was in government?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that. I think it shows that, across parties, we want to see something done about this matter. I would certainly support the Labour Government making moves to address it.
Another area of great concern to me is non-stun slaughter. I am not going to go through how barbaric that is and how much pain we put animals through as a result, but we are seeing an ever-increasing number of animals being killed by non-stun slaughter. In just two years, the number of sheep slaughtered by non-stun slaughter has increased from 22% to 29%. Under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, animals must be stunned before slaughter so that they are unconscious and do not experience unnecessary pain.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has long been a doughty champion for animal welfare. The strategy includes other measures around slaughter, such as on the use of carbon dioxide stunning. The industry has looked at various ways to reform that, but it would be very challenging and potentially very costly. Like a number of other measures in the strategy, we must ensure that transition is done with the industry and does not impact British food production or our food security.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Absolutely. We need to do everything we can to produce more food in this country rather than abroad.
I am concerned about the increasing trend of non-stun slaughter. As I said, 29% of all sheep slaughtered in this country are killed through non-stun slaughter. The 1933 Act made it clear that non-stun slaughter is permitted only for religious reasons, but that is clearly not what is happening today. Many retailers, right around the country, sell animals that were non-stun slaughtered; the National Secular Society found that Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco all did so without any form of labelling. It is critical that consumers understand what they are buying.
In this country, 30 million animals are killed by non-stun slaughter—a most awful way of slaughtering animals—every year. We can make a significant difference. There is no reason for them to be killed in that way. In making sure that they are stunned, we can still ensure that they comply with halal and kosher standards. If we want to make sure that animals are put first and that we are looking after them, the Government need to be more robust in squeezing out these practices, and I hope the Minister will say a few words about how she is looking to do that. We want to make sure that our farmers can compete on a fair playing field on the world stage, but we also need to end the barbaric act of non-stun slaughter in this country and deliver higher welfare standards to so many animals.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Ms Lewell. I am tempted to join the discussion about non-stun slaughter, but I will not, other than to say that my understanding is that the derogation to allow it is meant to cater to domestic populations, yet we are exporting quite a lot. Not allowing animals killed in that way to be exported would be one way to significantly reduce the numbers.
I very much welcome the animal welfare strategy. There is lots of good stuff in it, and things that some of us who have been around for a long time have been pushing for for many years. I would like a bit more clarity from the Minister on the timescales and when these measures are likely to come into effect. Will legislation be needed? Will there be one overarching animal welfare Bill—primary legislation—or can we do things by statutory instrument? Will the Government look to private Members’ Bills? That was something that the previous Government used to try to kick issues into the long grass; they were nervous about bringing forward anything more substantial because they thought that we would try to ban trail hunting. We tried to tack that on, so they farmed off individual, discrete private Members’ Bills to their Back Benchers instead, and even those did not get over the line for the most part. Also, how will progress be monitored? Can we have a regular statement to Parliament?
I am a little concerned by how much is going out to consultation. I have had a briefing from the NFU, which I have read carefully. I appreciate the financial pressures on the farming sector, and I know that colleagues will talk about things like the sexing of the 40 million to 45 million male chicks that are slaughtered each year within a day of their birth. There are systemic issues with how much farmers are paid for their food and how much we are prepared to pay for it, but we should not use the argument about the financial pressure on farmers to move away from doing what is right in terms of ethical animal welfare practices.
I look at things very much from the perspective of trying to avoid a shift towards ever more intensive industrialised farming. We know that the poultry industry, for example, is huge: over 1 billion meat chickens are bred every year. We know the impact on our water supplies and air quality from what are more like factories than farms. There is very little profit to be made from that.
On the dairy sector, one of my concerns is how the strategy links up with moves to reduce emissions from livestock. The Climate Change Committee recommended reducing herd sizes to about 80%, but the Government talk about increasing production as a way of compensating for that. As I understand it, a beef suckler cow naturally produces about 4 litres of milk a day, and at the moment a dairy cow produces about 28 litres a day. If we are talking about increasing production and getting ever more milk out of a cow—treating them like machines rather than sentient animals—that will be of real concern to me, so I would like to know how that will be dealt with.
My final point is about octopus farming. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was recognised, after quite a battle, in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, but cephalopod molluscs, which include octopus, have not been brought into the scope of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There are measures abroad, in the United States in particular, to ban octopus farming. I am very concerned about plans for an octopus farm in the Canary Islands. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s stance on that?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this really important debate. I really appreciate the discussion, and wholeheartedly support much of what has been brought up.
One thing that I am disappointed to see is missing from the strategy is the breeding of dogs with extreme conformation. I am specifically talking about brachycephalic dogs—dogs with flat faces, including pugs, French bulldogs and English bulldogs. They are bred with such extreme conformation that they have a narrow trachea, so they struggle to breathe. They have narrow noses and what we call inverted laryngeal saccules at the back of their throat. That all impedes air flow, which means that many of these dogs require surgery in the first few months of life simply to breathe. Many owners who buy these dogs have no idea that that is going to be the situation. They might spend several thousand pounds buying a puppy, then come into the vet and discover that, within weeks or months of owning the dog, they are going to have to fork out for surgery. Some cannot afford that, which means the dog gets rehomed or euthanised—that is heartbreaking for owners and vets.
In case people think I am talking about a very niche issue, the number of brachycephalic dogs increased by 3,000% between 2010 and 2020, and around that time French bulldogs surpassed labradors as the most registered dog in the UK. This is possibly the single biggest pet animal welfare situation at the moment. Aside from the breathing issues, the dogs look very cute—that is why people breed them; they look like a teddy bear, with little flat faces and big bulgy eyes—but their eyes end up getting corneal ulcers and are damaged very easily. Some of these dogs have lifelong painful eye conditions as well.
The popularity of these dogs is driven partly by social media influencers posing with them and partly by companies using them irresponsibly in advertising, completely out of context—for example, for absolutely no reason, a pug pops up on the Amazon error page. It is such a problem that it is causing vets a lot of distress as well. If you talk to a bunch of vets about it, they will almost roll their eyes and say, “You wouldn’t believe how many of these I saw today. It’s really upsetting.” It is upsetting for owners as well.
It is rightly illegal to intentionally cause an animal to suffer, and people get prosecuted for that. For some reason, it does not seem to be illegal to breed an animal that you know will definitely suffer—an animal that will almost certainly require surgery just to be able to breathe. This is something that the Government need to take very seriously, and something that we should really focus on. There is the potential for legislation to apply already, if it were tweaked, because it could be argued that an animal with two parents that were bred to need that type of surgery in the first place is being intentionally caused to suffer. I urge the Government to look at this, because it is possibly the biggest pet animal welfare issue that we deal with at the moment.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing the debate.
Animal welfare is one of the biggest issues people write to me about, and I am glad when they do, because the way we treat our animals matters and says a lot about what kind of country we are and want to be. I see every day in Aylesbury and the surrounding villages how much people care about animals. We are fortunate to have local charities doing brilliant work with and for animals. I think, for example, of Horses Helping People, a charity in Ledburn, where I met the most beautiful, well cared-for horses and heard about the role they play in helping people who are neurodivergent, have learning disabilities or anxiety, or are experiencing other mental health challenges.
We are fortunate to have local farmers like Nick, who I met on his beef farm near Wingrave, who are determined to give their animals the best quality of life. They know what a difference that makes to consumers. I am also fortunate in my patch to have people who feel passionately about this just on a personal level and write to me about all sorts of things, some of which we have discussed today, whether it is banning electric-shock collars for pets, ending the cruel use of snare traps, or banning illegal puppy and kitten smuggling—I was pleased to support the law on that that passed last year.
I want to touch briefly on three recurring themes that come through most strongly from my constituents. The first is the use of cages for hens. We have heard a lot about chickens and the industrial scale of the chicken farming industry in particular. My constituents are really clear that animals should receive care, respect and protection, whatever farming system they are kept in, and I agree. I welcome the fact that the animal welfare strategy commits to phasing out cages for laying hens, alongside farrowing crates for pigs. Those will be fantastic steps, and I hope the Minister will work at pace, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to drive them forward. I would love to see an end to male chick hatching, too. We have the technology; we just have to adopt it, and others have covered that well.
The second point that many people write to me about is animal testing. Personally, I want to see that phased out as quickly as possible. We have made a great commitment—a £60 million investment—to accelerate the development of alternatives, alongside further funding to advance human relevance testing models. We have a serious science-led road map in the animal welfare strategy, and it has been welcomed by organisations such as the RSPCA and Cruelty Free International, but I hope we can keep going further and faster to advance the scientific alternatives in areas where they do not yet exist.
The third point, which has not yet been raised in detail, is food labelling. Many constituents have told me that they want clearer animal welfare information on the food they buy so they can make the right purchasing decisions that align with their values. It can also really help the farmers who invest in higher welfare standards to differentiate their products and be fairly rewarded for them. It is really important for young people as well; we want them to have a better relationship with food and animals than we do, and knowing where their food comes from and seeing it on packaging could help. I have seen commitment from the Government in this area and I hope we can progress that quickly.
The direction of travel set out in the animal welfare strategy sets a really positive path ahead of us. I hope we can continue to move at pace to implement it. The UK’s proud reputation for high animal welfare standards is deserved, and if we can move the strategy forward, we can ensure that further improvements become a legacy of this Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for setting the scene so well and for her contribution. I understand that this issue is devolved, but colleagues in Northern Ireland watch decisions in this House very carefully, including the proposed legislation, so there will be much interest in this debate.
I speak as an animal lover—many people will say that, but I am. My wife has volunteered in animal shelters for the last 15 years, so I am used to coming home to another cat or dog that she has acquired along life’s way. For some reason strays seem to come to our house and stay too—they obviously know that they will be well looked after. We love our animals and have an animal graveyard at the bottom of our garden—we live on a farm—for the dogs and cats that have passed on. We have a place for them in the garden, and also among the trees as well.
I have long stood firm on the need to ban the import of hunting trophies, and this comes from someone who supports country sports. It is my firm belief that we should use what we shoot, which is why many of my neighbours woke up on Boxing day after we had been out shooting with a present of pheasants, ducks or pigeons. They have to be plucked and cleaned before they are ready, and the preparation is left to them. My point is that we must never confuse shooting to eat or for conservation with the collection of a trophy.
To give an example, each year on our farm we use a Larsen trap, which is a humane trap, to capture and control predators and encourage small bird life. Along with my son, last year we trapped 45 magpies and 10 grey back crows. What did that do? It transformed our farm; before there were few young songbirds, but now there are many. We now have an abundance of small bird life that we have not had on our farm for many years, including yellowhammers, which are back in numbers on our farm, and indeed on our neighbours’ farms. That bird is almost extinct in some parts and is often used nowadays in different terminology, for a different reason. Looking after the predators ensures that the small, threatened species can thrive. The animal strategy must acknowledge that a multifaceted approach is necessary in the countryside for farm control and conservation, and that animals should not be senselessly slaughtered.
I will conclude because I am conscious that I would like to give others a chance to speak. I highlight, very briefly, that while I oppose animal testing on many levels—it is not worth testing a face cream that may take away wrinkles on animals—I do believe that there is a place for animal testing for medication to save lives. That must be acknowledged in any strategy that comes forward. There is a difference, and we must acknowledge that.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I stand here as the owner of Roy the dog, who we were originally told was a black lab but turned out to be the size of a cocker spaniel—we are still not entirely sure what happened there. When I told my wife that I was going to apply for selection in Hexham, she said that if I was going to do this mad thing then we were getting a dog—thank goodness: he looked good on the leaflets.
Animal welfare and the extension of the fox hunting ban to include trail hunting was one of the first things that drew me into politics, and to the Labour party. There is a lot to be welcomed in the animal welfare strategy, and I say that as someone who has spoken to many constituents who are appalled by the continuation of fox hunting and want to see it end.
I want to touch upon the excellent speech, in many respects, by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). Continuing to allow lower standard food into UK shops undermines our farmers and our claims to prioritising welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) made the point that improving food labelling is essential for allowing customers to make conscious choices to know that they are supporting, not just high-welfare food standards and domestic procurement, but reducing the carbon emissions caused by food when they back British-made food. Therefore, labelling could be looked at by the Minister, to see how we can ensure that we not only prioritise animal welfare in trade deals and preserve UK standards wherever possible, but that we promote domestic food consumption, so that we do not allow fields to be carved out of the Amazon to feed the United Kingdom. We must ensure that we back our farmers wherever possible, in order to feed the United Kingdom.
I will quickly mention a few other issues that the strategy could address. One of the issues that comes across my desk quite a lot is concern about vicarious liability when it comes to raptor persecution on grouse moors. I engage a lot with grouse moors in my constituency—I speak to the people involved with them—so I know that it is incredibly important to a lot of people that where raptors are being persecuted, the ultimate owner of the land is held responsible, and that we do not simply allow those lower down the food chain to take the blame. We must ensure that such persecution of raptors is made the landowner’s responsibility.
The constituency of Hexham is full of animal-lovers, who are concerned about pets, livestock and growth in animal welfare standards. The strategy is an incredibly good foundational document, but I urge the Minister to consider where we can go further. I note that one of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries at the Department for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), is here; it would be great if he could go back to colleagues in the Department and urge them to ensure that when they engage in trade negotiations, we are able to have confirmatory votes on them, so that MPs can stand up and be counted when it comes to ensuring that animal welfare standards are preserved, not just at home but abroad.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate today.
I come to this debate with the simple belief that animals should not suffer at our hands. That is why I welcome the animal welfare strategy, which was published last month. It reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change. It also marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on cages, crates, wildlife protection and welfare standards. I look forward to supporting the Government in making sure that those commitments are kept and change happens.
A strategy is only as good as its delivery. As organisations such as Humane World for Animals and Compassion in World Farming have made clear, without clarity about how and when the strategy will be delivered, there is a real risk that it will remain aspirational, rather than being the transformative instrument for change that we all hope it will be.
The scale of the challenge is stark. In 2024, around 280 million animals were kept in intensive farming in the UK, and that number is going in the wrong direction—an increase of 23 million since 2017. That growth has not been driven by rising domestic demand but by cost pressures, economies of scale and policy choices that continue to favour factory farming over higher welfare alternatives. That is why the strategy’s commitment to ending the use of cages and crates matters so much. Around 200,000 sows still spend weeks of their lives confined in farrowing crates, unable even to turn around, while around 8 million laying hens remain in cages that are little larger than an A4 piece of paper.
Warm words are not enough. The reforms must be time-bound, properly resourced and backed by financial support to help farmers transition. The Nature Friendly Farming Network and Compassion in World Farming are clear that improving animal welfare must go hand in hand with supporting farmers, rather than their being left to shoulder the costs of transition on their own. Crucially, we must ensure that the higher standards that will be required in the UK are applied to imports, so that any higher welfare British farmers do not find themselves being undercut. As others have said, mandatory welfare labelling for both domestic and imported goods is also vital.
There are welcome things in the strategy for animals in the wild, such as the imminent complete ban on the use of snares and the action on trail hunting, but there are crucial omissions in the strategy. It is silent on ending greyhound racing, which the Labour Government in Wales are doing. It also fails to mention the prohibition of imports of fur and hunting trophies, as well as regulation to limit the noise from fireworks in order to protect animals.
There is much to welcome in the strategy, but there are also some omissions. It acknowledges the need to reduce animal experimentation, yet we have heard that 2.5 million animal experimentation procedures were carried out last year. The Government are on the right path to replacing animal experiments with modern, reliable alternatives, judging from the plans that they announced in November. However, we need clear, time-bound plans that cover experiments on all types of animals.
Finally, none of these things will work without enforcement. Animal Aid, Cats Protection and many others warn that weak inspections and under-resourced regulators undermine even the best legislation. Whether we are talking about farms, laboratories or companion animals, standards without enforcement are standards in name only.
The public, the science and morality have aligned. We have the evidence and the expertise and, with this strategy, we have the momentum. The question now is how we can support the Government to match ambition with action, clear timelines, robust enforcement and real support for those doing the right thing. I urge the Government to ensure that the strategy delivers not just promises, but real lasting change for animals—and I will support them in doing so.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published last month, is welcome. It makes important commitments to improving animal welfare, but it will come as no surprise that I want to raise some issues around cats in particular. I will declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. I am also owned by three furry felines.
There are roughly 12.5 million cat owners in the UK, with around a third of households owning at least one cat, but there are significant inconsistencies in animal welfare protections between cats and dogs. In July 2025, I presented a petition to No. 10 Downing Street with the charity CatsMatter, which called for cats to receive the same legal protections as dogs when involved in road traffic collisions. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to report hitting a dog but not a cat. CatsMatter has another petition calling on Parliament to legislate, which has already reached 11,000 signatures. The animal welfare strategy should include a commitment to providing that protection for cats.
The strategy needs to go further to address breeding practices, as has already been mentioned today. Over the last 200 years, cats have been increasingly bred for distinctive characteristics to make them look a certain way. Unfortunately, those characteristics become increasingly extreme and over-exaggerated, and they cause serious health and welfare issues. In the Netherlands, new ownership of Scottish Fold and hairless Sphynx cats was recently banned to prevent unnecessary suffering; that followed a breeding ban of those species in the same country in 2014. The UK Government should consider similar moves to prevent cats suffering. Extreme cat breeds such as the Bully cat are bred in ways that predispose them to skin disease and respiratory issues. Breeding Munchkin cats with short legs can lead to joint abnormalities that result in arthritis. There needs to be far greater parity between cats and dogs in breeding regulations to prevent the exploitation of cats for commercial gain.
Another significant concern, which other Members have mentioned, is that we have only committed to a future consultation on electric-shock collars. There was already a consultation in 2018, which was fairly conclusive. We do not need another consultation: we need an immediate ban on cruel electric-shock collars. We also need to go further with microchipping and create a single point of information rather than 23 separate databases. At the start of this week, many colleagues were here debating fireworks yet again; that is another missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy.
We have an opportunity before us to deliver a strategy that does more than just gesture at compassion, and one that genuinely protects millions of cats—and other animals—who share our homes and lives. Cats deserve the same consideration, protections and commitment to welfare that we already extend to dogs. I urge the Minister: let us be bold, let us listen to experts and the public, and let us implement meaningful change that cat owners and cats have waited far too long to see.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this important debate. I believe that how we treat animals says everything about who we are as a society. I receive countless emails from constituents who care deeply about the welfare of animals, so I welcome the introduction of the Government’s animal welfare strategy for England and the recognition that animals are sentient beings. I am pleased that the Government have committed to measures that include the banning of cages for laying hens, ending puppy farming and phasing out pig farrowing crates. If Britain is to secure its reputation as a world leader on animal welfare, the strategy must go further, faster and be wider in scope.
My constituency of Eastleigh is home to the Blue Cross, which regularly receives greyhounds that have been abandoned, injured and traumatised. Between 2017 and 2024, across the UK more than 4,000 greyhounds died or were put to sleep as a direct result of racing, and more than 35,000 injuries were recorded on UK tracks. Interest in greyhound racing is declining. The industry has repeatedly promised reform, but has failed to deliver meaningful improvements. That is why the largest animal welfare charities, including the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and the Blue Cross, have jointly called for greyhound racing to be ended. The Welsh Government are already taking steps in that direction. I am therefore deeply disappointed that the animal welfare strategy does not mention greyhounds once. Will the Minister consider the calls made by charities and commit to end greyhound racing in the UK?
I also want to raise again the issue of trophy hunting. I have previously asked the Minister why it remains legal to import hunting trophies of vulnerable and endangered species, including critically endangered rhinos, elephants, cheetahs and leopards. Despite repeated promises from the previous Government to end the practice, legislation has not yet been delivered. Will the Minister provide a timetable for when exactly the Government plan to introduce the legislation? I also urge the Government to stand firm against attempts by the Trump Administration to influence our country’s stance on trophy hunting imports.
Turning to kept wild animals, the strategy states that the Government will work with experts and industry representatives to ensure that animals kept in zoos and aquariums in Great Britain are looked after to the highest standards. What reassurance can the Minister give me that zoo licensing inspectors and the Zoos Expert Committee will be given tangible powers to enhance that goal rather than simply offering advice, and that those powers will include the ability to mandate improvements, impose sanctions or ultimately withdraw licences where welfare standards are clearly not being met?
I was proud to support my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), with his Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to protect those animals from mutilation and illegal trafficking. I welcome the strategy’s desire to take steps to improve the uptake of a pet-selling licence by those who sell cats and kittens as pets, but the lack of a commitment to regulate cat and rabbit breeding, which has been highlighted by the Blue Cross, is disappointing.
The strategy is a very welcome step forward, but it must be more ambitious on timescales, enforcement and scope. Animals cannot wait another decade for change.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to all the speakers, including those who have come here with much to say but have not managed to get in in this debate. I feel for them— I have been there. I offer a massive thank you to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) who led the debate with real distinction and great passion. She made an important series of points, many of them followed up with her own examples.
How we treat animals is an indicator of whether we can even call ourselves a civilised or humane society. Overall in the UK I think we treat animals relatively well. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is what we call ourselves and mostly that is true. Some 84% of us, for example, consider animal welfare when we act as consumers and buy food. Animals are sentient, but they do not have agency, although I can neither confirm nor deny that the size of our majority in Westmorland is down to the fact that we extended the franchise to certain woolly residents. Herdwicks are, after all, rugged individualists and are thus part of the core Liberal vote.
But animals do not get to decide how humane we are. That is for us to choose. We can choose to protect the culture and practices of how we care for wildlife, pets and livestock and not, for example, undermine those practices by undercutting our ethical British farmers with products from overseas produced in less than humane conditions.
The Government are doing some things right—it is important to acknowledge that. They are choosing to ban cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs by 2032, but the strategy fails to adequately consider domestic food security and competitiveness, which are crucial to maintaining and extending our strong animal welfare culture in the UK.
If the Government propose raising domestic animal welfare standards further, which they rightly do, they must also take steps to ensure consumers are protected from imported food products that can be produced to lower standards. British farmers should not be asked to compete with imports produced at those lower standards, which would be illegal if they were produced here in the UK, and yet they are being asked to do so.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
We have seen reports about the US suspending the technology prosperity deal with the UK in an effort to force the Government to accept lower-standard imports in order to secure a trade deal with the US. Does my hon. Friend agree that these bully-boy tactics by the Trump Administration should not be kowtowed to, and we should not accept lower standards in return for a trade deal with the US?
Tim Farron
Of course. What is the point in having these standards if we give them away to those who put us under extreme pressure? I completely agree with my hon. Friend and urge the Government to take the same position.
We are seeing the UK outsourcing its egg and pig production abroad, to lower standards—it has already begun. In 2024, the UK imported 109,644 tonnes of eggs, equivalent to the output of approximately 8.5 million layer hens. The previous Labour Government banned sow stalls in 1999, and this Government are now proposing to phase out farrowing crates, yet in the last year the UK imported just shy of 600,000 tonnes of pork—6.4 million pigs—mostly from countries where these practices remain, and are likely to remain for some time, utterly legal.
More than 90% of UK citizens believe that UK animal welfare standards should apply to imports, and so do I. The UK needs to protect those high welfare standards, for ethical reasons of protecting animal welfare but also to ensure that we do not harm our domestic agriculture industry and therefore reduce our food security even further. Farmers in Cumbria and across the whole United Kingdom are vital to food security. It is time we listened to them and made Government a help, not a hindrance. It is not right to put them in a position where they are forced to compete with cheaper, less ethically produced imported food.
I am a free trade liberal, but free trade is not free if it is not fair. We need a level playing field, especially on animal welfare practices. It is right that we celebrate Britain’s high animal welfare standards, but we should do more than just celebrate them—we should put our public money where our public mouths are. Public sector procurement policy should ensure that the majority of food we purchase comes from the UK, because buying British is not just patriotic; it is the surest way we can know that the food we eat will be ethically farmed. Across the 1,600 farms in Westmorland and Lonsdale, farmers take great pride in the high animal welfare standards they implement. The Government need to recognise and reward that.
The Liberal Democrats will not punish farmers by importing animal products with low welfare standards. Sadly, the Government continue to do that. On 9 January, the Government lifted reinforced import controls on consignments of beef, poultry meat, meat products and meat preparations exported from Brazil to Great Britain. That change means that Brazilian shipments will no longer be subject to the additional checks that were previously imposed, reducing inspection intensity. That is clearly a backwards step.
The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for how we would tackle these issues more broadly. Trade deals must never undercut UK animal welfare. We will sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, restoring co-operation and alignment on food and welfare standards. We will ban the import of food produced with antibiotic growth promoters and ensure that no product illegal to produce in Britain can be sold here, and we will support farmers directly to help them lead the world in high standards of animal husbandry. Because animal welfare matters to us, we would ensure that the regulatory and economic levers that Government can pull will be used to not just protect Britain’s high welfare standards but advance them further.
The animal welfare strategy, welcome though it is, must be far more comprehensive in scope, recognising that our approach to trade, public procurement and our domestic economy can have huge impacts on improving or worsening the collective welfare of animals. I urge the Government to be fully aware of those impacts and learn from the failure of the last Government, whose rush for politically convenient trade deals led them to throw our farmers and our animal welfare standards under the bus.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is good to be able to discuss the animal welfare strategy after the Government announced it on 22 December—after Parliament had risen and just before Christmas—in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this debate, which I believe is her first in Westminster Hall—what a great topic to bring to the House, because it finally gives all Members of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the strategy.
We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made clear by the contributions to the debate. Members have mentioned the pets at home that they care for deeply—including Roy the dog, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I hope that it was not just Roy the dog that managed to get the hon. Member elected, and that it was his good work as well, even though Roy appeared on his leaflets.
It is right to point out that since leaving the European Union we have had greater freedom to determine our animal welfare law. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised the sentience of vertebrates. Powers conferred by the Act have also seen octopuses and lobsters recognised as sentient beings. The Act also created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to the Government on future animal welfare reforms.
The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, a practice that extended the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by export. In 2016 and 2023, the previous Government made changes to the law to require dogs and cats retrospectively to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners; I visited Oakworth Boarding Cattery and Yorkshire Cat Rescue, in my constituency, which very much welcomed the measure. In 2019, wild animals were banned from circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.
However, there is much work to be done. We welcome a good proportion of what is in the animal welfare strategy, including banning puppy farming, but I will spend most of my contribution talking about the recommendations that impact our farming sector. The Government must work with our farmers, listen to the concerns of the industry and ensure that any reforms are affordable, are practical, are effective and, at their heart, promote animal welfare. I therefore concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and the hon. Member for Hexham that any food we import into this country must meet our animal welfare standards.
When we are putting additional pressures on our farming community through employer national insurance, the minimum wage and the family farm tax—which are hindering the investment our farming businesses and wider supply chain need to make to deal with the additional challenges associated with animal welfare regulation—there is a fear that British domestic food production will be unable to compete with imported food. We have seen an increase in the amount of food not produced at our standards coming into this country.
The British Poultry Council has recognised this issue. It states:
“Welfare will continue to be a top priority for our members…However, welfare does not exist in isolation from all the other pressures we face, and our guiding light right now has to be feeding the nation through supporting our food producers not hindering them.”
That is why it was so frustrating to learn this week—despite the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about eggs being imported into this country—that the Government have extended for a further two years the relationship whereby Ukrainian eggs can be imported into this country, despite those eggs not being produced at the high standards that we require in this country and industry concerns around salmonella. I hope that the hon. Lady shares my concerns about the Government’s extending that relationship, despite the concerns raised by the wider egg industry.
One point that has not been mentioned in today’s debate is the Government’s desire to change the welfare practices associated with lamb castration and tail docking, about which many sheep farmers have raised huge concerns. The castration of male lambs is an important management practice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and tail docking is essential to prevent and reduce the risk of fly strike. Those are significant animal welfare issues.
The Government have launched a consultation, but they need to listen to our farming communities and learn from their insight. The current proposals will be detrimental to animal welfare, reduce our ability to compete and have a negative impact on the sector. Simply dictating that an anaesthetic must be used is wholly impractical and, I dare say, adds to the level of uncertainty about animal welfare. When dealing with very small lambs, it is very difficult to get the dosage of anaesthetic right. That is just one illustration of the Government’s naivety in relation to how food is produced in this country.
The Government also wish to introduce further animal welfare controls for broiler breeding—the meat chicken sector—to promote slower-growing breeds. I again urge them to continue to engage with the sector through the consultation that they will no doubt undertake and to adopt an evidence-based approach that considers domestic food security and consumer demand. Chicken is of course a very important meat product, and the Government’s direction of travel is causing concern in the broiler industry.
I also want to talk about ending beak tipping in the poultry sector. As birds age, there is huge risk associated with pecking. That issue has high animal welfare status, and hatcheries use skilled operators and precision equipment in beak tipping. The Government aspire to ban the practice, but that is not necessarily in the best interests of the industry, so I urge them to engage with the poultry sector through the consultation. There was a real opportunity in the animal welfare strategy to be really tough on food labelling, and it is therefore frustrating that there is no real ambition in that regard. Compassion in World Farming and Members in this Chamber have expressed their disappointment that the strategy does not include proposals on food labelling.
Our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), said that there was a missed opportunity to tackle the issue of dogs with facial conformation challenges. He made the point that between 2010 and 2020, there was a 3,000% increase in flat-faced dogs. I will not repeat the terminology, because I am not familiar with it, but there was a missed opportunity to tackle that conformation in dogs.
It is also disappointing that there was no ambition to reform the veterinary sector. The strategy fails to include much-needed urgent reforms and actions for the veterinary sector, which faces a workforce shortage. The sector not only maintains standards but should be driving the enhancement of animal welfare and animal standards. The Opposition are clear that the Government need to make that a priority, so I ask the Minister what their intentions are.
Another area of concern, which we debated in this Chamber earlier this week, is fireworks. That issue was raised not only by the RSPCA but by more than 376,000 people who signed petitions on the subject. There was a huge missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy, which does not address the hugely negative impact of fireworks on pets, other animals and livestock.
Perran Moon
I have listened intently to hon. Gentleman, but I am struggling to understand the Opposition’s position on trail hunting. Will they join Reform in supporting it or Labour in banning it?
Robbie Moore
I am very clear: fox hunting was banned in 2002, and any fox hunting that is seen to be taking place is illegal. The fact that trail hunting has been included in the animal welfare strategy is an indication of the Government’s naivety about what is happening. This is not an animal welfare issue; the Government are removing liberty, freedom and the ability for private individuals to conduct an activity on their land. The Opposition’s position is that there are much, much more important things that the Government should be focusing on.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing the debate. I am sure we can all agree—as virtually everyone has said—that we are a nation of animal lovers. We love our pets, we look after our farm animals and we want to ensure that we protect the nation’s wildlife. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare.
Animals are at the heart of British culture and identity and our relationship with them runs deep. Protecting them matters to this Government. We published our new animal welfare strategy for England in December, setting out a clear long-term plan to safeguard standards and deliver the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation. This is a comprehensive package of reforms, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK.
There were questions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), about timings. This is a comprehensive strategy, although I note other contributors wanted more to be included. We clearly cannot implement it all in one go and we have begun with some early consultations to bring in the first steps. Some issues in the strategy will require primary legislation; others require consultation and tweaks. It is a progressive approach to introducing it across the piece, as we go through this Parliament. There will not be one great big Bill; there will be a range of things to get on with before the primary legislation that will be necessary to deal with some issues, as many contributors to the debate know.
People across the country already do exceptional work to improve the lives of our animals, including farmers, vets, volunteers at rescue centres and many more. The strategy is about backing that work with support from Government, clear standards and practical action. This Labour Government want a strategic approach rather than the piecemeal interventions we have seen in the past. We are not worried about having primary legislation to which people can attach amendments that we can argue about and discuss as the Bill goes through the House.
We will take a more strategic approach that targets action where it is most needed. We will strengthen enforcement and will support animal keepers and owners to do the right thing. Legislation alone is not always enough to change behaviour. That is why we must continue to work with scientists, industry and civil society to ensure that the reforms lead to better outcomes for all animals.
The animal welfare strategy builds on the Government’s proven track record in delivering reforms, ranging from introducing new world-leading standards for zoos to tightening the laws around livestock worrying. In November, we also published a strategy on replacing the use of animals in science, which set out how we would partner with scientists to phase out animal testing.
Our strategy sets out the priorities we will address, focusing on the changes and improvements we aim to achieve by 2030 and the steps we will take to deliver our manifesto pledges to ban trail hunting and the use of snare traps, and to end puppy farming and smuggling. Pets play an important role in many people’s lives, providing companionship and joy to millions of people, but we know that loopholes in the current system can mean some animals are bred in and sourced from low-welfare settings.
We will end puppy smuggling by consulting on reforming dog-breeding practices, improving their health and welfare and moving away from practices that lead to poor welfare and unwell animals. The brachycephalic issues spoken about by our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), are obviously included when dealing with some of these concerns. We will take steps to implement the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, closing loopholes in pet travel rules that have been exploited by unscrupulous traders. We will use the powers to prohibit dogs and cats being brought into the country with non-exempted mutilations, such as docked tails and cropped ears.
We will also consider new licensing requirements for domestic rescue and rehoming organisations, to ensure that rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for. We will consult on a ban on the use of electric-shock collars due to the possible harm those devices cause to our pets. I hear what hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on both sides of the House have said about that ban, and the firm view that we should have one. We just want to check through the consultation that nothing significant has changed since the last one was done in 2018, and we will act on the results. Alongside that, we will continue to promote responsible dog ownership to protect public safety and we are looking forward to seeing the recommendations from the reconvened dog ownership taskforce.
Let me mention cats, as they came up in several contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We do not plan to regulate cat breeding as a separate activity at the current time. Anyone in the business of selling cats as pets should already have a pet selling licence, and we will work with the sector to improve take-up. We will also work with the sector to build an evidence base to see whether there is an increasing need to go further. We have our eyes on it, but there are no current plans to include cats in some of the other regulations for dogs.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
A quick question on road traffic accidents, only because it would involve simple secondary legislation that inserts the word “cat” to give cats the same protection as dogs. Are there any plans for that?
Dame Angela Eagle
There are no current plans for that, but I am happy to consider it given my hon. Friend has raised it.
I now turn to how we protect our precious wildlife. As our understanding of animal welfare continues to evolve, the law must keep pace with the latest evidence to prevent wild animals from suffering cruelty, pain or distress. Therefore, we will ban trail hunting. The nature of trail hunting makes it difficult to ensure that wild mammals are not put at risk, and we intend to launch a consultation very soon. We will end the use of snare traps because they are indiscriminate, can catch pets and protected wildlife, and cause terrible suffering.
We are also among the only European countries without a closed season for hares, which means that young hares can be left motherless and vulnerable. We will therefore consider introducing a closed season, which should reduce the number of adult hares shot during the breeding season.
We are giving farm animals greater freedom and dignity. The Government value the excellent work of British farmers who produce high-quality food to some of the highest welfare standards in the world, which we are rightly proud of. Ending the use of intensive confinement systems such as cages and crates is a key priority. We have launched a consultation on phasing out colony cages for laying hens and plan to consult on transitioning away from farrowing crates for pigs, but we will do that in conjunction with the industry, because we understand the nature of the costs and the transition time required to move to higher welfare standards. We have already launched a consultation on improving the welfare of lambs during castration and tail docking, and I will continue to work with the industry to support voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds.
We also want to improve welfare throughout an animal’s life, so we are taking action at the time of killing. Following advice from the Animal Welfare Committee’s report last year, we propose to consult on banning the use of carbon dioxide gas stunning for pigs. We will introduce humane slaughter requirements for farmed fish into legislation and publish guidance on humane methods of killing decapods. We are committed to working together with the farming community to maintain and enhance our world-class animal health and welfare standards. I will sit down so that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire can wind up.
Samantha Niblett
I thank everybody for their contributions, and I encourage them to listen to the most recent brilliant New Scientist podcast, “The World, the Universe and Us”, in which the historian Rutger Bregman, who wrote “Moral Ambition”, asks what, in the future, we will look back on and be ashamed of. The way we treat animals is probably one of those things. I am reminded today that the animal welfare strategy is not an end game, but animal welfare is a moving goal.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the animal welfare strategy for England.
Dementia Support: Hampshire
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered dementia support in Hampshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. We all know someone who has been impacted by dementia. My much-loved mum died in 2024 after a seven-year struggle with Alzheimer’s, so I know first hand what it is like to have to fight for the care and support that dementia sufferers need.
One in three people born today will develop dementia in their lifetime. Across Hampshire, more than 22,000 people are currently living with dementia. If national trends continue, that number is expected to rise to more than 31,000 by 2040. Dementia already places high pressure on families, the NHS and social care, and without decisive action that will only intensify. It is vital that we get the system right.
According to Dementia UK, 1,323 are living with dementia in Eastleigh, which is approximately 1.41% of the local population—higher than the national average.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a massive issue for each and every one of us. The hon. Lady has referred to figures in her constituency, but given Northern Ireland’s ageing population, the figures there are expected to almost double, rising from 22,000 to 43,000 by 2040. That poses major challenges for health and social care. Does she agree that to be forewarned is to be forearmed, and that the Government must make preparations to deal with the growing numbers by implementing changes to the system right now?
Liz Jarvis
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
The average wait time for a dementia diagnosis in Eastleigh is 91.7 days, and post-diagnostic support is inconsistent and often inadequate. We must get to a position where dementia care is built around a clear, joined-up pathway that families can rely on from the very start and where a person can receive early diagnosis followed immediately by assessments, access to specialist advice, dementia-trained professionals and consistent points of contact, such as Admiral nurses. Drug treatments, where appropriate, home-based support, respite care and, where needed, smooth transitions into care homes, would all be part of one coherent system, not a maze of disconnected services. We need more support to stay at home and more support in the community, and family carers should be informed about available support and given greater access to regular respite. Diagnosis must be the gateway to timely, specialist and sustained support; too often it is not.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech about an incredibly important subject. It affects my constituency, too, where we have 1,500 people living with dementia. On top of that, as she was referring to, around a third of the people currently living with dementia do not have a diagnosis and, staggeringly, the NHS does not have a target to tackle that. Will she join me in urging the Minister to meet with Alzheimer’s Research UK to discuss its call for a national 18-week target from when people are referred by their GP for assessment to when they receive diagnosis and a treatment plan?
Liz Jarvis
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
I heard from a constituent whose wife has Lewy body dementia and has lived in the same care home for several years. She is settled there and knows the staff. They know her needs, her routines and her personality. It is, by any reasonable definition, her home. Yet my constituent has been told that when money for his wife’s self-funded care runs out, she will not be supported to remain there because the home is not on Hampshire county council’s approved list. She will be forced to move away from familiar faces into an unfamiliar environment at precisely the stage when stability and familiarity matter most.
Families impacted by dementia frequently find themselves navigating a fragmented system, unclear funding decisions, delayed assessments and a complete lack of continuity of care. One of my constituents told me that his mum, who is in her 90s, has been informed that her savings have now fallen below the financial threshold. He requested a review from the county council months ago. Despite repeated chasing, he has been told that it may be many months before their situation is reviewed. In the meantime he has been placed in the impossible position of having to somehow find the funds to continue to pay care home fees that he cannot afford or risking financial instability for the care provider. That is not how a compassionate system should function. Continuing healthcare funding must be urgently reviewed. Too many families face flawed assessments that fail to recognise the complex needs of people with dementia, leaving them to shoulder enormous financial burdens at the most vulnerable moments of their lives.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s mother, and the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituents. Many people in my constituency of North East Hampshire face similar challenges. I have personal experience with a relative who could not get a diagnosis in Hampshire despite many of us, as her family members, trying very hard to help her to do so. She ended up having to fund all her care herself, and did not get treatments that she might have needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must prioritise this care so that people with dementia can have continuity and the support that they need?
Liz Jarvis
Of course, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is too much confusion and delay around accessing assessments for dementia patients and their carers, and too much focus placed on ticking boxes rather than determining the most cost-effective options available to families.
Hospital discharge is another major pressure point, as up to one in four beds are currently filled by someone with dementia. I have been contacted by families whose loved ones have spent weeks in hospital only to face discharge into home environments with minimal support. My constituent Nicola told me that the consultant and occupational therapist caring for her father said that he should not be discharged because of his high risk of falls, but that their hands were tied by the county council. She said that the family were told to supervise, rather than to provide care, and to wait for carers to arrive. That meant her father would be left at risk of falls and accidents, or left sitting in soiled clothing, because no one was allowed to intervene. Family carers should not have to go through such endless battles, facing constant uncertainty about support and being stretched to the limit just to get their loved ones the care they deserve.
The ambition in the Government’s 10-year health plan is to move care from hospitals into the community, with greater access to neighbourhood health centres. That ambition is welcome but it will succeed only if dementia specialist support is embedded at its core. Neighbourhood health services must include dementia-inclusive multidisciplinary teams with access to specialist dementia nurses. Changes to the Hampshire carer support and dementia advice service have compounded those challenges. For 12 years, that service was delivered by Andover Mind, which provided advice, guidance and vital emotional support. It was changed with very little notice, as part of Hampshire county council’s ongoing savings programme, which is addressing a projected shortfall of £143 million for the coming year. Chronic underfunding of local government has meant that such non-statutory services are often cut back, despite being lifelines for so many people across the county.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I can empathise with my hon. Friend’s experiences of caring for her mother. My father also died of dementia; we cared for him at home for many years. On a more positive note, I recently visited the St John’s dementia group in Winchester. It is a fantastic group with loads of activities—I joined them in singing “Sweet Caroline”, badly—and it provides vital support for those with dementia and for their carers by giving them some respite. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do all we can, at the local and national levels, to support such community groups, which provide light relief for people in very stressful, chronic situations?
Liz Jarvis
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my mum was first diagnosed with dementia, one of the most important things for her was going to Singing for the Brain sessions, where people are encouraged to remember old songs. That was brilliant for her, but obviously it is not enough. When the condition starts to progress, it becomes harder and harder, yet the care that is needed is often not available, as I am setting out.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), it is important that families know where to access these voluntary sector services. The East Hampshire dementia services directory is a great initiative, as are voluntary groups such as Dementia Friendly Petersfield and Dementia-friendly Alton. The Alton group now has its own dedicated building and a full programme of activities; I have invited the Secretary of State to visit, as it is an interesting initiative to see. Will the hon. Lady join me in commending all the wonderful voluntary sector groups?
Liz Jarvis
Absolutely. Community-based activities that keep people active, stimulated and social must be protected and expanded. Those services delay deterioration, reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life for people living with dementia, and for their fantastic family carers.
At present, there is no Admiral nurse service in Eastleigh, leaving my constituents reliant on acute services, such as Wessex neurological centre or Winchester hospital. Admiral nurses provide specialised, dementia-specific care, offering expert guidance and continuity to families navigating a terrible disease in an increasingly complex system. Without that local, in-person support embedded in community care, families are more likely to face prolonged uncertainty at the very moment when specialist help would make the greatest difference. I urge the Government to adopt a new national dementia care pathway, backed by clear minimum service standards, that includes guaranteed support across the entire journey—from pre-diagnosis through to end-of-life care—standardised wait times and a meaningful post-diagnostic support plan for every person with dementia.
Improving dementia outcomes must also include wider access to new treatments. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has ruled that the drugs lecanemab and donanemab will not be provided on the NHS due to their cost. As a result, people with early stage Alzheimer’s disease in England and Wales will not have NHS access to medicines that have been shown to slow the progression of the disease. Will the Minister support an update to the NICE guidelines to reflect the growing pipeline of disease-modifying treatments, so that people who cannot afford to pay privately do not have to face long waits for innovative treatments?
I also highlight the need for greater consideration of the specific needs of people living with early onset dementia. According to Dementia UK, an estimated 70,800 people in the UK have early onset dementia, where symptoms develop before the age of 65, but diagnosis can take significantly longer for younger people and many are left with very limited post-diagnostic support. At their most vulnerable, they are forced to navigate health and social care systems that are designed for older people and take no account of mid-life responsibilities, such as dependent children, while facing the financial and psychological consequences of leaving employment early, as well as facing a terminal illness. That is why every integrated care system must be required to develop a clear, co-ordinated early onset dementia pathway.
We must also address the needs of people living with rarer forms of dementia, those for whom English is a second language, and those, such as veterans, whose dementia is shaped by trauma. I have previously raised the fantastic work carried out by Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, which provides vital help to former service personnel and their families, and recognises the complex relationship between dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder and past trauma. That specialist understanding must be reflected across the system.
Care home quality and workforce training are also critical. An estimated 70% of care home residents aged over 65 are living with dementia, yet only around a third of staff receive any dementia training. A statutory duty for dementia training across all Care Quality Commission-registered care providers is long overdue.
Dementia care is not just about systems, funding and targets, but about people, and what we would want for our own parents, partners and friends. I have seen the difference that inclusive, enriching care makes, whether through meaningful activities, music, poetry, or simply someone taking the time to understand the person behind the diagnosis. On constituency visits to Sunnybank House care home in Fair Oak, Brendoncare Knightwood care home and the HC-One Chandlers Ford care home, I have witnessed the professionalism and commitment of staff first hand. It is always a privilege to join Dementia Support Hampshire and Isle of Wight for its Christmas carols at St Andrews church in Eastleigh. It is a reminder that joy, connection and matter right to the end.
With our rapidly ageing population, it is crucial that more support is given to families coping with dementia, so that they do not have to jump through endless hoops to get support, and that those living with dementia are treated with the specialist care, compassion and dignity that they deserve.
I have previously spoken in this House about the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s on my family and how, when a loved one is diagnosed with that terrible disease, you lose them twice. My constituent Nicola, whose father has dementia, has asked me to urge Members to
“think about how they would feel if it were happening to their loved one and how they would feel if their loved one had no-one to advocate for them to get the right help and support.”
I urge the Minister to listen to the experiences of families in Hampshire, to act on these recommendations, to work closely with Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK and Alzheimer’s Research UK, and to ensure that dementia care in this country is finally given the priority it demands.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I really appreciate serving under your chairship, Ms Lewell—I think it is one of the first times I have done so.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing this debate; I know that dementia support in Hampshire is a cause that is close to her heart. It is also very close to my heart—sadly, I lost my mother to Alzheimer’s in December 2023—and I know exactly what the hon. Lady means when she talks about what a tough time it is for everybody concerned. I also thank her for her huge efforts to raise awareness of the condition, and for her active participation in the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. Although the hon. Lady has brought to the table the subject of dementia support in Hampshire, I hope she will appreciate that I will cast the net somewhat wider in my response, because it is important to see services in Hampshire in the broader context.
Almost 1 million people across the UK are living with dementia. Every one of those people, as well as their friends, families and carers, have their own unique and important story of living with dementia. Even those united by geography will have vastly different experiences. Our goal is to make sure that those experiences differ because we are all fundamentally different people with different thoughts, feelings and backgrounds, and not because of unequal access to diagnoses, health services or support. As I am sure everyone present will agree, it is vital that every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life.
The first step in delivering great care and support for those living with dementia is ensuring that they are able to get a diagnosis. The Alzheimer’s Society’s recent survey on lived experience told us that 96% of people affected by dementia reported a benefit to getting a diagnosis. It is, therefore, our duty to ensure that as many people as possible can access that benefit.
We know that a diagnosis is the gateway to better care, support and potential treatments, and the least we can do is help those living with dementia, and their friends, families and carers, to step through that gateway. That is why we are committed to increasing diagnosis rates to the national ambition of two-thirds of those with dementia receiving a diagnosis. During the pandemic, we sadly dropped to lows of 61%. At the end of November 2025, the overall estimated dementia diagnosis rate for patients aged 65 and over was 66.5%, while the estimated dementia diagnosis rate for Hampshire was 64%. That is, of course, an overall increase from March 2020, due to sustained recovery efforts.
But even when they are armed with a diagnosis, many people have found that there is varying and unequal access to support. We know that our health system has struggled to support those with complex needs, including those living with dementia. People have braved incredibly difficult circumstances and faced hard, emotionally overwhelming conversations to get their diagnoses, and we cannot abandon them afterwards. That is why, under the 10-year plan, we will make sure that those living with dementia will benefit from improved care planning and better services. By 2027, 95% of those with complex needs will have an agreed care plan.
We have also committed to delivering the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia. This will help to deliver rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and in productivity, and will be informed by phase 1 of the independent commission on adult social care led by Baroness Louise Casey, which is expected this year. The framework will seek to reduce unwarranted variation and to narrow inequality for those living with dementia. It will set national standards for dementia care and redirect NHS priorities to provide the best possible care and support.
We are committed to a well-supported adult social care workforce who are recognised as the professionals they are. The Department is supporting the professionalisation of the adult social care workforce through our recently expanded care workforce pathway, which provides a framework for progression and development opportunities so that people can build their skills and careers in care.
We launched a public consultation on the design of the fair pay agreement process—a major step towards implementing it in 2028. The consultation looked at how the process should operate, including who will be part of the negotiations and how the agreement will be implemented. The consultation closed on 16 January 2026. The regulations to establish the negotiating body and to bring together employer and employee representatives are expected to be laid this year. We expect negotiations on pay, terms and conditions and other matters such as training and career progression to be held in 2027. Once the body has reached an agreement on how the funding should be spent, the fair pay agreement will be implemented in 2028. The Government are backing that with a £500 million investment.
The 10-year health plan sets out how we will work towards a neighbourhood health service, with more care delivered locally to create healthier communities, spot problems sooner and integrate health into the social fabric of places. This is crucial for those living with dementia. Adult social care is part of our vision for a neighbourhood health service that shifts care from hospitals to communities, with more personalised, proactive and joined-up health and care services that help people to stay independent for as long as possible. Social care professionals will be a vital part of neighbourhood teams, working alongside the NHS to help people to stay independent for longer and playing an enhanced role in rehabilitation and recovery. Over time, the neighbourhood health service and the national care service will work hand in hand to help people to stay well and live independently.
I know it is disappointing that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has been unable to recommend the two new disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s—lecanemab and donanemab—in the final draft guidance, but it is right that such decisions are evidence based and taken independently. NICE is a world-renowned health technology assessment body, and I remain confident in its methods and processes for ensuring that any new medicines recommended for use on the NHS provide the most health benefit at a cost-effective price to the taxpayer.
As announced in the life sciences sector plan, we are taking a number of measures to reduce friction and to optimise access to and uptake of new medicines. The measures will boost the speed of decisions and cut administrative burdens for the system and for industry. NICE and NHS England are doing the work to plan for the adoption of any new licensed and NICE-recommended treatments.
Research is crucial to support people living with dementia and their carers. The Government are investing in dementia research across all areas, from causes, diagnosis and prevention to treatment, care and support. The National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, funds and supports impactful research. For example, NIHR infrastructure investment has supported the groundbreaking DROP-AD trial, which has shown that Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers can be detected using finger-prick blood samples. That is a really exciting development that brings us closer to accurate and timely diagnoses of dementia.
Research cannot take place without the incredible people who volunteer to be part of it. Through the NIHR, my Department works closely with charity partners in the delivery of joint dementia research. People with and without a diagnosis of dementia can use an online platform to sign up to take part in vital dementia research. I encourage everybody and anybody who might be watching this debate to register with the service, to help to shape the future for people living with dementia. We will continue to invest in dementia research in Hampshire and across the UK.
We recognise the vital role of unpaid carers and are fully committing to ensuring that they have the support they need. I chair a cross-Government ministerial group with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions, all at the ministerial level. Through the measures in the 10-year health plan, we are equipping and supporting carers by making them more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and streamlining their caring tasks by introducing a new “My Carer” section in the NHS app.
To support unpaid carers, on 7 April 2025 the Government increased the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit from £151 to £196 a week—the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage. This was the largest cash increase since the carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976. As a result, more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30.
We are reviewing the implementation of carer’s leave and considering the benefits of introducing paid leave for carers. On 19 November 2025, we published the terms of reference for the review of employment rights for unpaid carers, and in 2026 we will run a public consultation on employment support for unpaid carers. To help local authorities to fulfil their duties, including to unpaid carers, we are making around £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26.
I again thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for bring forward such an important topic for discussion. Whether on research, the workforce or unpaid carers, we recognise that there is a tremendous amount to do. We have two work streams, one of which is the Casey commission, which will look at how we fundamentally rewire how we do care in our country, and the other is what the Government are doing immediately. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for the Casey review; we are taking forward the measures that I have, I hope, outlined with sufficient clarity.
I absolutely recognise that there is a huge way to go. We have a mountain to climb on this. We are not going to fix our national health service unless we fix our care service; it is a deeply integrated ecosystem and we have to get both sides of it right. The 10-year plan and our plans for a neighbourhood health service are all about moving from fragmentation to integration, and that is the way we have to go if we are to get our health and care systems back on their feet and fit for the future.
It has been a real pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I hope I have reassured her that dementia is a priority for this Government, and that we are going to do all that we can to ensure that those living with dementia, and their loved ones and carers, are supported and cared for.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government re-organisation.
It is, as usual, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Before I begin, I would like to ask the House a simple question: who truly understands the challenges and intricacies of local life in our constituencies? Is it civil servants sitting behind desks in Whitehall, or is it our constituents—the people who live, work and raise their families in the communities affected by local decisions? The obvious answer, as I hope the House will agree, is that our constituents know best, and yet we find ourselves in a situation where the Government appear determined to ignore those voices on local government reorganisation.
Since those plans were announced and rumours emerged of an extension to the city council boundary in Leicester, I have led a campaign against it. I have tabled amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, asked questions on the Floor of the House and written to Ministers, and yet the response remains the same. The Government simply do not want to listen to the people who will be most affected by any local government reorganisation.
This is not to say that I am opposed to reforms. I recognise the potential benefits of consolidation: savings for the hard-pressed taxpayer, particularly at a time when this Government continue to raise taxes to unprecedented levels; and the possibility of more efficient public services. But any changes must be done with communities, not to communities. Residents must have a voice—a say in which neighbourhood plan they fall under, who runs their local services and, crucially, how much council tax they will be asked to pay. I do not want to predetermine what the Minister will say today, but if she decides against opening a discussion on the introduction of referendums, I will continue this campaign. I will be presenting a Bill to the House of Commons to give Members the opportunity to empower their residents with a final say on what local government reorganisation should look like in their areas.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I completely agree with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we did not have that opportunity under the last Government when the Conservatives imposed local government reorganisation on places like North Yorkshire. Does he think that his party’s Government should have done the same too?
Mr Bedford
A lot can be learned from previous Governments of all different colours, and I ask the Minister to look at history and not repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past.
Local identity, democratic consent and keeping council tax low are all at the forefront of my constituents’ concerns. First, there is growing concern throughout villages such as Glenfield, Leicester Forest East, Birstall and many more that if they are absorbed into the city council area, they will have development after development quite literally dumped on their green and beautiful spaces. These communities see their villages—currently served by Leicestershire county council—coming under increased pressure from the city council expansion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. Having been elected as a councillor back in 1985—in those days, I had some hair—and served some 26 years on the council, there is a special place in my heart for local government and the real benefit of local councils making local decisions. Does he agree that accessibility to the council for the general public must be protected at every level, and the removal of access for people in towns and villages by centralisation can never be acceptable?
Mr Bedford
I absolutely agree: council services should be accessible to all. One of the concerns that my constituents have—particularly those in rural areas—is that if they are absorbed into a city unitary authority, they will have less access to be able to get their views and thoughts across. I share the sentiment that the hon. Member expressed.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I share with my hon. Friend a cautionary tale? Often, reorganisation is promoted as delivering better value for money, but since Christchurch was absorbed into the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, the consequence has been less efficiency and higher costs, to the extent that BCP council is now applying for a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, without a referendum. The history of the Christchurch council area is that in a local referendum with a 60% turnout, 84% of people were against joining up with Bournemouth and Poole—and they were right. The trouble was that the Government then refused to listen to the views of the local people.
Mr Bedford
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) earlier, this Government should reflect on the mistakes that previous Governments of different colours have made and ensure that the views of local people are always taken on board before any decisions are made, which was not the case in the example my hon. Friend just gave.
In my constituency, development is being pushed further and further outwards, right up to the boundaries. As a result, my constituents see local services being stretched. In Glenfield, for example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the city mayor in Leicester, who recently declared a climate emergency, is looking to build over the much-loved Western Park golf course, which is on the city-county boundary. Residents’ groups are currently able to lobby their local representatives, including me, to try to protect such spaces, but ultimately we all know that if Glenfield is incorporated within the city boundary, residents’ groups will have fewer and fewer avenues through which to defend the character of their community.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?
Mr Bedford
As I said to the hon. Members who intervened earlier, this Government should definitely learn from the mistakes of previous Governments. That is particularly true in relation to the example the hon. Gentleman just gave of local government reform being introduced against the wishes of local people, resulting in an adverse impact on their local services and the community. I take his point and I hope that the Minister will listen to him, too.
I am not raising concerns today because I am a nimby—I fully accept that housing is needed—but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby overbearing mayors, such as those in London, Birmingham or Leicester, are able to force their housing quotas on to the outer edges of their cities and gravely impact the lives of county communities.
Secondly, it is clear from the consternation of many people in my constituency that they do not wish to be ruled by a city mayor who has little chance of being removed. My communities in Anstey, Birstall and Leicester Forest East, and in many of the villages that border the city, fear being permanently outvoted by the urban-focused city electorate.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says; he speaks absolute common sense. An even better example is what has happened in Greater London, where the borough of Havering, which has always been in Essex, is being sucked into Greater London and paying huge sums of money to subsidise inner-London areas, but gets very few services in return. The Mayor of London is dictating to places such as Romford when it comes to building high-rise blocks in the town centre and imposing things such as the ultra low emission zone, as well as his crazy, woke political correctness, which I know most people in my constituency and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are completely opposed to.
Mr Bedford
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate point about his constituency. I know that he has been working on this issue for many years and I hope the Minister will take heed of what he just said. I know he will continue to champion those causes.
My constituents have watched Leicester itself decline while the county continues to deliver. The previous Conservative administration at county hall presided over better education services, better roads and better social care—all at a fraction of the cost. Quite simply, my constituents do not want Leicester city, or its mayor, to drag them down. Is it any wonder that they ask, “Who in their right mind would want to be a part of an urban-focused Leicester city council?” Indeed, on the doorsteps many of my constituents tell me that they moved to the county precisely to escape the decline of the city. Frankly, I could not agree with them more: I made the same decision just over a decade ago. I believe in devolution, but expansion would leave county representatives outnumbered and overruled while city priorities, such as the climate crisis, take precedence over the needs of areas such as Mid Leicestershire.
Finally, and perhaps crucially, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum—
Mr Forster
As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?
Mr Bedford
I think all the residents who would be impacted by any changes should be consulted in a referendum. All the constituents who would be part of a potential new authority should be consulted as part of that referendum—that is how I see it working. Of course, there are different models, and the Government could explain and explore those models in any approach they introduce.
As I was saying, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum, because reorganisations directly determine local priorities and how much council tax our constituents will pay. If the boundaries are redrawn and my constituents are absorbed into a city council area, I believe they will face higher taxes for poorer services. Why on earth should we say to my constituents in villages such as Birstall, Anstey or Thurcaston, who are already dealing with the highest tax burden in a generation, that they will pay more for less—and without a say?
To conclude, at a time when trust in politics and in this place is at an all-time low, what better way is there for the Government to show that they are listening than letting ordinary people—the people who are impacted by such reorganisations—have the final say on how their local services are delivered? They should have the final decision on how changes are implemented.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. It is always right that the House has the opportunity to discuss how local government works, how it can work better and how we ensure that it delivers for the people we represent. Although I do not believe that referendums are necessarily desirable in the context of the current local government reorganisations, for reasons I will come to shortly, I do believe that there is real value in debating these issues openly and transparently. Local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long lasting, so it deserves serious consideration.
It is true that the Conservative-led coalition Government conducted a round of referendums in 2012 across a huge swathe of our major cities. The issue is that when people were asked whether they would like a mayor, every city—bar one—said no, but only a few years later, they got one anyway. They did not seek to repeat that exercise. The referendums the Conservatives held were, in truth, little more than lip service.
I think that most people here will think that mayoralties in the main—with honourable exceptions—have been a successful endeavour: they give power and autonomy to the places that have often been forgotten in the past. Of course, in recent years many places underwent local government reorganisation with no referendum at all.
It is worth mentioning an elephant in the room when it comes to the postponement of elections by a year in places such as Suffolk, which I represent, until all-out elections in 2027 and mayoralty elections in 2028. The Conservative party’s new-found aversion to postponing elections is quite remarkable, not least because, as Local Government Minister, the Leader of the Opposition postponed elections in Cumbria, while the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), also made the decision, as Local Government Minister, to postpone all-out district elections before reorganisation in Buckinghamshire in 2019. And Robert Jenrick—remember him? I was going to say he was the latest recruit to Reform—
Jack Abbott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction from a sedentary position. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), while Secretary of State for Local Government, when talking about postponements in places such as Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, said that elections in certain circumstances
“risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]
It is an interesting volte-face for both Reform and the Conservative party. That is the previous Conservative leader, the current Conservative leader, and the right hon. Member for Newark, who, up until last week, was agitating to be the next one, so I will take with a pinch of salt the Conservatives’ new-found desire for referendums or postponements—not least because one particular referendum was arguably the start of a psychodrama that continues to envelop them nearly a decade later.
We did have a referendum in 2024: we had a general election. Local government reorganisation was a clear and explicit part of our Government’s manifesto. I know that, under the Conservative party, delivering on manifesto commitments fell out of fashion—they were little more than vibes, at best, by the end. But we were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it.
Tom Gordon
The hon. Gentleman says that the electorate endorsed that at the ballot box. I wonder if he might show a little contrition in acknowledging that Labour got less than 50% of the vote, so trying to make out that that general election was a glowing endorsement of this Government and this manifesto commitment is perhaps putting a bit of a shine on it.
Jack Abbott
We are sitting here with a parliamentary party of more than 400 MPs. That is an overwhelming mandate under the electoral system that we have been operating under for centuries. The Conservative party can probably reflect on that, if we are talking about numbers.
Andrew Rosindell
Can the hon. Member will tell us whether it was also in the Labour manifesto to abolish local council elections?
Jack Abbott
As I have already laid out, and as the hon. Gentleman will know from when he was a member of the Conservative party, postponing elections where a local government was undergoing reorganisation happened a number of times. I was not here, so I cannot remember whether he spoke out against his Government at the time for doing so. A number of local government Ministers decided to postpone those elections, and I presume that he fully endorsed those postponements at the time—although I am happy for him to correct the record on that point.
The Government were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it. Our Government are embarking on the biggest transformation of local government in a generation. This is not change for change’s sake, but because the status quo has been failing far too many communities for far too long.
Tom Gordon
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way and being so generous with his time. He talks about change, but we are seeing the continuation of the same local government reorganisation that we saw under the previous Government, with the rolling out of the same mayoralties as well. This is not change so much as a continuity of plans that were already in place—unless he wants to give us anything new that I am not already aware of.
Jack Abbott
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken. In my own patch in Suffolk, for instance, the devolution proposed under the previous Government meant handing out a few more powers for a tiny bit of extra money. We are proposing unitarisation of places such as Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, plus a mayoral candidate for the elections in 2028. What we are seeing is far more radical and significant; in fact, for my part of the world, it is the most significant change in local government for more than 50 years, so it is a big step change from what the previous Conservative Government proposed.
For decades, power has been hoarded in Westminster and Whitehall while local councils were stripped of capacity, fragmented in structure and left struggling to meet rising demands after having their funding hollowed out. Nowhere is that failure clearer than in my home county of Suffolk. In a past life I was a county councillor, and I do not believe that the current status quo is working—I do not think many people living locally do, either. Although I accept that that is due to severe hollowing-out of funding over 15 years, a do-nothing approach is clearly not an option for us either.
Those sorts of issues—pot holes left unrepaired, special educational needs provision in crisis, children and families passed from pillar to post and adult social care under unbearable strain—are not abstract problems. They affect people’s daily lives, their dignity and their trust in local democracy. The truth is that the current system is not working, and we needed to do something radical. As I said, a do-nothing approach is not a neutral option, but a decision not to change how local government is structured and empowered. It would simply condemn communities such as mine to more of the same.
That is why the Government are choosing to devolve and not dictate through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. We are rebuilding local government so that it has the strength, scale and capability to deliver—[Interruption.] We hear chortling on the Conservative Benches, but the Conservative Suffolk county council requested this process and has also consulted with the public. People were able to put their views forward.
Our county council has put forward an option for a single unitary authority, and all the district and borough councils have put forward an option for three unitary authorities, so there has been significant consultation at local level. Parties of all stripes, although they may disagree on which outcome they would like to see, have all engaged constructively in this process on the whole.
We are looking to transfer power out of Westminster and into communities, and to give local leaders the tools to drive growth, create jobs and improve living standards. This is about rebalancing decades-old divides and, as I said, we have not seen this sort of reorganisation in my part of the world for more than 50 years.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech for an area of the country that is still two tier. However, having been a representative in a unitary council and lived in one for a number of years, it is worth putting on the record that being part of a unitary authority does not mean that potholes or SEND provision are perfect. I appreciate that that is probably not what he is implying, but someone listening to this debate might be led to believe, mistakenly, that unitarisation is a silver bullet. Does he agree that we need to be realistic about that?
Jack Abbott
Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly that unitarisation or local government reorganisation alone is not a magic bullet. The things the hon. Member describes are due to severe underfunding. Pothole and road maintenance funding fell to around £17 million a year, down from £20 million, although it crept up again. We are putting much more money into that. We saw bus services shredded in the previous 14 years, but we now have the biggest upgrade to bus services since 1998. Some of those things will help; I believe that unitarisation will help to deliver better public services, and provide more of a single point of accountability for voters, but change also comes down to leadership, culture and investment.
In Suffolk there is a credible, detailed and ambitious alternative to the status quo. In my opinion, the proposal for three unitary councils put forward by all the district borough councils of Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, Babergh, East Suffolk and West Suffolk clearly shows that this is not a partisan project, but a set of proposals put forward by politicians of all stripes. It is a collaborative effort across political parties, grounding in evidence and focused on outcomes.
I believe it would be simpler for residents: there would be a single point of contact, as mentioned earlier, and more accountability, ending the confusion over who is responsible for what. Anyone who has knocked on doors will have heard residents say, “I don’t care who it is—I just want the council to fix it.” That is a sentiment that is shared quite widely.
Andrew Rosindell
All of us knock on doors and talk to our constituents. The thing they are really unhappy about, in all councils, is the fact that councils are not operating effectively and getting the true local jobs done in their local communities. The more remote the system and the bigger the council area, the less effective it will be. Does the hon. Gentleman see the point about smaller towns, villages and boroughs losing their identity and local control because it goes to some big bureaucracy somewhere else, a long way from where they are?
Jack Abbott
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; there is a balancing act to be achieved, ensuring that we have the size and scale of councils to deliver public services efficiently, while also rooting them in their local communities. That is why I am backing a proposal for three unitary councils over the proposal from the Conservatives at Suffolk county council for a single unitary council.
As part of the local government reorganisation, places such as Ipswich, which I hope will turn into a greater Ipswich authority, would still need to retain a town council, and the parish council element would be really strong. I used to be a parish councillor, so I recognise the value and importance of those communities and having that very local representation as part of this.
Funnily enough, that leads me directly on to my next point: crucially, the three unitary councils proposal strikes the right balance: it is big enough to deliver but local enough to care. A greater Ipswich council, alongside strong East and West Suffolk authorities, would allow each area to play to its natural economic strengths, make faster decisions and champion its communities with strong local voices.
Although this has been a constructive debate in my part of the world, the conduct of the county council has at times been deeply disappointing. Rather than making a positive case for its own proposal, it has repeatedly resorted to misleading and aggressive tactics. Nearly £50,000 of taxpayers’ money has reportedly been spent on social media advertising for its own single campaign, with further tens of thousands earmarked for so-called “Alice in Wonderland” leaflets, which seek to ridicule all alternative proposals. That is not engagement; it is propaganda, and I urge the Minister and the Department to look at it carefully. At a time when potholes are going unfilled and children with special educational needs are being failed by that same county council, voters and residents in my area are entitled to ask why public money is being spent on spin, rather than services. The council’s behaviour betrays a lack of confidence in its own case and a disregard for local people.
Local government reorganisation must be about the future. It is about not just tomorrow, but the next 30, 40 or 50 years. It certainly cannot be about the preservation of power, status or the status quo. It must be about improving services, strengthening accountability and restoring trust. The Government have set the direction. We were elected with a mandate for change and we are delivering on that. Devolution is fundamentally about people, ensuring that communities such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine their own futures. That is why referendums are not needed to delay or derail this progress. What we need is leadership, honesty and the courage to build a system that finally works for the people it serves.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you presiding over these proceedings today, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate; it is good to have an opportunity to discuss these issues openly.
It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott). He made a lot of the fact that there are hundreds of Labour MPs and the great mandate that that has given this Government. I find it vexing that, with a majority as large as the one this incoming Government have, that they should choose as priorities things such as digital ID, attacking jury trials, taking away school freedoms, trying to ban vaping in pub gardens and trail hunting, and a costly reorganisation of local government.
I am relatively agnostic when it comes to the structure of local government. Some people say that they are in favour of unitaries or of two-tier authorities; I always find that a peculiar position. It is possible to give a decent argument in favour of almost any structure of local government. The one thing I dislike is the upheaval when they are changed. Sometimes there is a good argument for change and we must do it, but we should never pretend that there is no cost to that change. There is a financial cost to reorganisation—what happens to buildings and all sorts of other things—and an effectiveness cost when any organisation is in a state of flux.
In the case of Hampshire, we will be moving from a two-tier system to a single tier of unitaries. There will be some economies of scale and benefits that come with that; for example, bin collections will be on bigger scale, and we should be able to get that at a lower unit cost. There will also be diseconomies in those services that are moving from the county level to the smaller level, for example adult social care and aspects of children’s social care and so on. We do not know—unless the Minister is able to intervene and tell me—what the net effect will be. I have tabled some written questions to ask what the Government’s assumption is on the net effect, and we do not have an answer to that.
If there is a net benefit from the mixture of those economies, diseconomies and costs of transitions, I guarantee that it will not come in year one. All of these plans end up being a classic hockey-stick sales projection—“Of course things are going to get better, but first we have to invest to make that happen,” so the curve goes down before it goes up. I am afraid that, for many sales projections, years one to three turn out to be accurately predicted, but the out years much less so.
There are big choices to be made in reorganising to unitaries—as was alluded to a moment ago in the context of Surrey and Suffolk—in terms of the number of different unitaries in a particular area. That can make a very practical difference to residents. Big-cost items are going to move from county level—the upper tier—into these unitaries. As everybody knows, the two biggest costs are adult social care and high needs children’s social care in education. They are going into the unitaries, so it will make an enormous difference for a district council, depending on which other areas it goes in with.
To fund all that expenditure requires income—from business rates, for example. The overall age structure in the broader footprint of the area also matters. People of working age are net contributors. Retired people and children need cash support. There is also the question of housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire put accurately and succinctly. There is a lot of controversy about the current targets for housing in rural areas, which have gone up under this Government by an average of 71% in new areas and 100% in areas such as mine—East Hampshire.
Some people feel that reorganisation and merging with nearby councils will solve that problem—all that housing will not have to go in the countryside after all; it can go in brownfield sites and developed areas, as it should. I fear that the opposite may be the case. We look to councillors to understand—as they do—the areas they represent. The further away decisions are made on things that really matter to local people, the less likely they are to be good for them.
Jack Abbott
What the right hon. Gentleman describes is already happening. Suffolk county council represents the entire county. The argument he is making is already playing out at the moment. We are having these conversations. This has already happened. We have rural councils making decisions about urban issues and vice versa. I do not think it is either/or.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful. I was talking about housing development and planning, which in Hampshire is decided by East Hampshire district council, not by Hampshire county council.
There is also the question of identity. Counties and parishes are anciently formed areas. Districts are quite often not; they are modern constructs in many cases, sometimes dating back only to 1974. How does that affect people’s sense of identity? That is half a century ago. I know that makes us all feel a little depressed; I was born in 1969. Over time, they acquire more of an identity, which we should think about.
The hon. Member for Ipswich was right when he said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He also made a lot of having a mandate for change. There were loads of things about change in the Labour manifesto—it said “change” on the front cover. It did not say that the change would include this precise type of local government reorganisation, involving moving specifically to unitary councils. Because it is complex, consequential and long-lasting, it warrants a steady and sober assessment of the implications for all our residents.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate.
I have made no secret of my views, unlike some Members who have kept their views to themselves on the outcome they would like. That is because I have a deep conviction, as someone who grew up in the area, of what feels right and what my constituents wish to see. I am in an interesting position because I am Plymouth born and bred, have served as a unitary city councillor, and now represent 40,000 residents in the city as their MP, but I do not believe the city needs to expand to deliver what it wants to. The plan is for an arbitrary number, which I genuinely believe is for land for homes and increased council tax receipts that villages such as Wembury, Yealmpton, Bickleigh, Woolwell, Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo would provide.
Devon is an interesting county, and a big one. It is the fourth largest county in the country, which I think people often forget, and is therefore very varied. We have national landscapes, Dartmoor national park, the largest naval base in western Europe, the Roman city of Exeter, a huge amount of manufacturing, and cultural gems, such as Saltram House in my constituency. Therefore, a plan that is entirely bottom-heavy—two cities and a large town coming together to say, “We’ll look after ourselves, guv,” and the rest of the county being left on its own—has understandably not landed that well with what is considered “the rest of Devon” but is, I gently point out, more than 50% of the population.
What we know about the county of Devon is that local identity matters hugely. That means that the whole county needs to thrive as a result of local government reorganisation, rather than there just being pockets of investment and development and then everybody else. Along the lines of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about the age profile, in a lot of rural Devon there are lots of older people, and the young and working population is in the big cities.
That is why it is not surprising that 90% of those who completed surveys that I have conducted on the local government reorganisation plans are against the plans to subsume 13 parishes in my constituency into Plymouth city council, and why approximately 1,900 people signed a petition to say the same. I have to say that, although Plymouth city council has done the consultation it is supposed to, the figure it shared with me for the number of residents it heard from was about half the number who have been in communication with me as the MP.
Those statistics come directly from constituents who currently have no formal voice in the LGR process. When the two cities in Devon seem determined to secure their own future rather than be realistic about the economic viability of the rest of Devon, it is not hard to see why my constituents are unhappy. As it stands, the LGR process has resulted in a bidding war and caused local councils, such as some in Devon, to pick the best bits at the expense of the rest. Obviously, that is my opinion, but that is what I am watching happen across the county. That is why I am against Plymouth and Exeter’s proposal to carve off the parishes that they think will get them to the magic number of about 300,000 that they have in their head, never mind what else happens. They literally call it, “the rest of Devon.”
The Government claim that consultation is taking place—I know that it is, because I have been invited to take part in it—but it is not the mass inquiry that I think we are talking about today. I do not necessarily think that it has to be a referendum, but something more formal would have been better. Options for Members of Parliament have been limited. I, for one, have been quite proactive. I have gone out to find out what my constituents think, and will be writing to the Minister to share their views. Other local MPs have written to the Minister simply based on their own political views without surveying their residents.
Local councils are being taken at their word. They may have carried out consultations, but they have been written up by the very people who want the change where there is a huge vested interest in seeing it delivered. They are quite literally marking their own homework. I know they have tried to be fair and spoken to as many people as they possibly can, but I am still not happy that that should be given greater weight than any of the information that Members of Parliament are sharing. One of the consultations the Minister will have received from the council implies that it has consulted with local MPs. Well, the only consultation was when I rang them to say, “Why have you said you have consulted with me when I have not actually heard from you?” They have had an opportunity and it has not been taken properly, which has left quite a bad taste in the mouth of Members of Parliament like me.
What we really need is a formal consultation of the communities affected. In this case, that should be county-wide, rather than just in the pockets that want to see delivery for themselves. Devon is a huge county, and a coherent consultation has been very difficult because so many options have been on the table. There has been a consultation for each individual plan, and none of them look at the big picture; they all look at the view that the particular council or group has been proposing. In a county like Devon, where the two key cities have Labour councils and majority Labour MPs, and with a Labour Government calling for this change, it is unsurprising that local people are doubtful of the proposals. I appreciate that it is all being done in good faith, but that is how it comes across at the moment.
Local identity really matters where there is a connection between urban and rural. That is what I am trying to present this afternoon. I am stuck in the middle, so to speak, between an urban city that ultimately needs money in its most deprived parts, and the country parishes, which are deemed richer. However, the whole south-west is poorer than large parts of the rest of the country, so we are comparing apples and pears, rather than like for like. Some 67% of those surveyed identified as being from Devon. I appreciate this was not a qualitative exercise, but 10% identified as being from Plymouth; and 18% typically named their small town or village as where they are from. That might not change, but to start having rubbish collected and services provided by the big city down the road is deeply concerning for a lot of rural villages, so imposing a top-down decision on communities like mine has, as I have mentioned, gone down very badly.
In the absence of a referendum, I call on the Minister to weigh heavily the evidence from MPs like myself where we can show community engagement among our own constituencies. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps the Department could have encouraged independent consultation rather than each of the groups’ creating their own plan and doing their own consultation, because I genuinely think they have gone and written up the answers that they want to portray. What I have heard is certainly not what I have had presented back to me by the councils.
I urge the Minister to look at Devon as a whole, as a county that has so much to offer. If it is left to cities and the rest of Devon, it will not necessarily be in the greatest interests of the county. I urge her to listen to the views of everybody, not just those from large cities, which, as I have said, make up less than half the county’s population.
I have one further question for the Minister. We have heard plenty this afternoon about the different services that can be provided by different councils. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned precepts. A confusing thing that has not been talked about is that as the change happens, we are not looking at a level playing field on council tax. In Plymouth at the moment we pay council tax to the unitary authority, but the district council, the parish council and county council get money. It is my understanding that precepts will remain for the parts of the unitary that are not in the city, and that we will end up with parts of my constituency paying more council tax than others.
Interestingly, there is an offer of creating town councils in new bits. Some of the independent councillors in one community in my constituency are pushing to create a town council in Plympton. I do not think the constituency is clear whether that means that the council tax will go up to pay for that new town council or the parish council. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, just to make it ultra-clear what we are talking about on the ground.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this timely debate. I have listened to colleagues who feel passionate about their towns, villages and counties. We have heard about Leicestershire, Hampshire, Suffolk and now Devon—all wonderful great English counties. It shows that whatever party we belong to, we care about the communities that we come from.
We want the best local government structure that works for local people and delivers services, but it is also about identity. For me, as a proud Essex MP, being stuck in this artificial creation called Greater London has never been good, so radical reform of local government is needed, and it needs to be as local as possible. True democracy is at a local level, not in some bureaucratic organisation in a city. It is local to villages and communities, which is where it should be. We should all work to achieve that and make it as democratic as possible.
On behalf of, I believe, local people the length and breadth of England, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of outrage against this Labour Government’s decision to delay an ever-increasing number of local government elections under the guise of restructuring. That is just an excuse not to hold elections. It is nothing less than a blatant attempt to hide themselves from the scrutiny of the ballot box, silencing the voices of millions of voters on the local issues that matter most to daily lives. I, alongside my new Reform UK colleagues here in Parliament, totally oppose the ditching of democracy in such a way.
Reform UK has launched a legal challenge, including a judicial review, due to be heard this week. We are clear that democracy delayed is democracy denied. The Labour Government are running from the fight of their lives in the upcoming elections on 7 May. There is no way that the British people will let them off the hook. They may delay the elections, but they are just delaying their own defeat and demise. The British people will not forget that it is Labour who have abolished democracy in whole swathes of the country on 7 May.
History tells us that only dictators cancel elections yet, shockingly, 30 local authority leaders have written to the Secretary of State requesting that local democracy be denied and their positions secured for another period without elections.
Jack Abbott
As I asked earlier, when the hon. Member did not correct me, did he have an issue when his former leader—either his current former leader or the one before—delayed elections as Local Government Minister? Considering his recent conversion, did he also speak out when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) postponed elections when he was Secretary of State for Local Government? Does he liken those individuals to dictators as well?
Andrew Rosindell
There is always a legitimate case to have a short delay when there is a serious purpose for doing so. I remember when Mrs Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council—what a glorious day that was. We did not have elections for the GLC and extended it for one more year. In circumstances such as that, where it is one more year, there are legitimate reasons to delay, but we are talking now about up to three years. That is unacceptable and completely beyond what is reasonable or necessary to get everything organised and ready for any local government restructure.
Andrew Rosindell
I am not going to give way because I know what the hon. Member is going to say. In my borough there have been no delays or restructuring for many years, so it has not affected my area. That is why I have not spoken about delayed elections in other areas; that is for other Members to have done during those restructures.
I would love local government to be restructured in the Greater London area—I have been calling for that for many years. Sadly, my former party refused to countenance such a thing. Tony Blair recreated the GLC under the guise of the GLA and introduced the elected Mayor of London, which nobody really wants and is very costly. We had the opportunity for 14 years to do something about that.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) also has concerns about the way that the Mayor of London and the GLA have operated, and he will reply from the Opposition Front Bench later. I am interested to hear whether a future Government that the Conservatives are part of will be radical and actually do something about the artificial local government structure that has been imposed on us in the Greater London area.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a democratic deficit. West Sussex county council, which is Conservative-led, has chosen to delays its elections for another year, which means that its county councillors will end up serving seven-year terms, without seeking a democratic mandate since 2021. Does he share my concern that the constituents of Romford did not elect a Reform MP?
Andrew Rosindell
At the general election, which we need as soon as possible, we will see how many Reform MPs are elected. I am happy to have an election as soon as possible, because this country needs change. We have been stuck in a rut for years and the British people have had enough. So yes, let us have a general election to get rid of this disastrous Government and put our country in a better place. Going back to the original point, most of the boroughs that are delaying their elections are Labour-controlled, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also requested cancellations, so they do not get off the hook scot-free.
As it stands, more than 600 council seats will not be contested later this year. Almost 4 million people will be denied the chance to elect their local council representatives. It really is shameful. It is unnecessary and wrong, and the policy should be changed. This is nothing short of a scandal. The British people deserve better; they deserve a say about who runs their local councils. That is why Reform UK supports serious consultations on local government reorganisation, and ultimately referendums on it. Local voices cannot be silenced, and we will fight to ensure that they are heard.
Although it brings a short-term advantage to the Labour party, blocking elections harms local people. Take my borough of Havering, for example. In 2000, London governance was reorganised in a manner not dissimilar to the reorganisation that is taking place across the country today. In the 1960s, our area had the administrative title of the London borough of Havering imposed on us, but everyone in Havering knows that we are in Essex. We did not need to be told that we are suddenly part of London when for one and a half millennia we have been under Essex, but the bureaucracy imposed that new title on us. Now we are under the thumb of the elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, so please can we have a referendum on whether to stay part of that regional government structure?
Havering is not London. We do not want our local government controlled by a London Mayor—particularly the current one—and I think most of my constituents would like us to get out. We want to connect with our Essex roots, both culturally and administratively. The people of Havering deserve a referendum on whether they want to continue to be dominated by a political mayor. Whether we remain part of that structure must be their decision. I believe it is time to give local constituents in Romford and throughout the borough of Havering a choice about whether we are under the Mayor of London or whether we should regain our independence and our local identity.
At one point, the Ministry stated that
“all elections should go ahead unless there is strong, evidence-based justification for a temporary delay.”
Those words are now haunting the Labour party. I firmly believe that local and regional government is in dire need of reform, not only in my borough of Havering but across the country, but the answer cannot be less engagement with local people. It must be the opposite of that: giving local people a genuine say about the structure of their local councils.
There should be thorough consultations, crystal clear explanations and referendums in local areas so that the decision is made by local people. Central Government bureaucrats must not make decisions above the heads of local people, ignoring what they truly want. The Government’s current excuses are simply that—worse, in fact. The reality is that this is a political stitch-up to keep local authorities under Labour control. From speaking to people in my constituency who have experienced a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor of London, I have to say that the last thing they want is for Labour to be running their local council. Labour is running from the polls and taking democracy with it; it should change this policy quickly.
There is still time for the Government to do their favourite thing: make a U-turn. We have seen a lot of those recently, so let us see another one on this issue. Local government needs fundamental reform, but the Government must consult people more broadly, respect democracy and allow elections to go ahead as planned. Anything else is unacceptable to local people across this country, regardless of their political affiliations. Reform UK will fight this every step of the way.
I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who made a very good point about the identity of the historic counties. For many years, I have fought to combine the historic and the ceremonial counties so that we all have one county identity, rather than the muddle that we have at the moment of ceremonial counties, administrative counties and historic counties. Three definitions of counties is nonsense.
Local government reorganisation means we should go back to the simple concept of a county being a geographical and historical area that we can all feel part of because it is our history and identity. My borough should have always have been under the ceremonial county of Essex. There are lots of other anomalies across the country—in Leicestershire and other parts—but perhaps the Minister could at least take this one back, so that we can have one county identity, which we could then celebrate across the country.
Mr Forster
The hon. Gentleman seems to have a focus on identity, whether geographical or party political, but my constituents in Woking are much more concerned about potholes and the appalling child safety issues under the county council. Does the hon. Gentlemen not think those issues should be the primary focus?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.
Andrew Rosindell
I was about to conclude my remarks when the Division bell rang. I hope that the Minister takes on board my point about the historic and ceremonial counties, and that councils across our land will proudly fly the county flags from each town and county hall across England. I know that will delight the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Norfolk county councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing the debate. Might I say how welcome it is that, unlike the Norfolk Conservatives, he is a Conservative who thinks that local government reorganisation requires more democracy, not less?
The Labour Government’s novel approach of centralised devolution has put an enormous strain on local authorities and caused a great deal of concern for my local residents. North Norfolk is an area with unique characteristics, and we have been well served in recent years by a Liberal Democrat-led district council that is well armed with local knowledge to deliver for my constituents.
We have the oldest population in the country, an economy that relies heavily on tourism, and unique environmental factors ranging from England’s largest seal colony to the fastest-eroding coastline in north-west Europe. It beggars belief that the Government, and Norfolk county council’s Conservatives, think that all that could be easily handled by one local authority that also has to contend with the needs of a further 800,000 people and 1,700 square miles of county. Whitehall’s demand to arbitrarily find populations of 500,000 or more for authorities proves that they have not taken the reality of rural areas into account.
Across the Government’s programme for local government reorganisation, little consideration has been given to the specific needs and characteristics of rural and coastal communities. Trying to bundle us together with inland areas completely misunderstands the unique challenges and opportunities we face, and risks worsening both. Furthermore, lumping in our rural economy to compete for funding and resources with an urban economic centre in Norwich and the surrounding area risks pulling support from our local businesses and preventing us from unleashing the rural powerhouse that North Norfolk can be. That is why I, and the vast majority of Norfolk’s councils and MPs, support the Future Norfolk proposal for three local authorities, and I strongly urge the Minister’s Department to go ahead with that.
I know that similar concerns and challenges are felt across the country, with Whitehall trying to dictate devolution and fundamentally misunderstanding much of how the world works outside SW1. It was deeply disappointing to see the Government delay our mayoral election for two further years. Devolution is important in Norfolk and Suffolk to deliver a brighter future for both counties and seize upon the new powers and funding from Government to drive change forward. We are left behind yet again.
I am concerned about the financial black hole that the decision has left, not only in Norfolk but for many authorities with delayed elections. We have heard today about the end of the shared prosperity fund, which was set to coincide with the arrival of combined authority funding and allow for a smooth transition to continue funding for important work done by local authorities. However, the delay means that we now see a cliff edge in September this year, with no support until we elect our mayors in May 2028. Will the Minister confirm what consideration the Department gave to that issue when it delayed our elections? What support is she going to provide for the stretched local authorities that have seen their balance sheets take yet another hit from the Government?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Our mayoral election in Sussex has been postponed until 2028, but the statutory instrument for the creation of combined authorities is still going ahead, and two elected representatives from each local authority are going to form the combined authority. That means Conservative councillors who have not had a democratic mandate since 2021 will create the combined authority; does my hon. Friend agree that that is the reason why they are holding on and delaying elections?
Steff Aquarone
Not only do I cynically agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that is precisely why it is so important to have local elections, because of not just the time that will have elapsed but the very important the decisions that authorities will make as part of the local government reorganisation that, as she pointed out, has already been legislated for.
I thank the Minister’s colleague in the Lords, Baroness Taylor, who made the picturesque journey all the way to Cromer to meet local leaders in North Norfolk, and who also made time to meet me and hear my concerns. Frustratingly, her considered approach does not seem to be reflected across Government. On much of the devolution agenda, the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. The Government are giving councils new statutory responsibilities and costs, which must be delivered ahead of LGR, but without providing any certainty about how to ensure that capital investment and budgetary decisions will be well suited to the set-up in a couple of years’ time.
There are valid reasons for, and drawbacks to, having referendums around the programme of local government reorganisation. I can understand sympathetic arguments from both sides. However, I fully understand why, given the track record of Norfolk Conservatives, my constituents are very worried about the blank cheque that the Government handed to them to work on LGR and devolution. Our devolution was delayed for years under the last Government, while the Tories in Norfolk fought among themselves as to who would be coronated as the elected leader. Our devolution was then pulled entirely, before being redrawn by the Labour Government.
When we look at how the Conservatives have run Norfolk since 2017, is it any wonder that my constituents might find the prospect of a referendum on their work appealing? The Conservatives rode roughshod over the views of local residents, threatened to evict people with bailiffs, and acted like playground bullies because people in Sheringham dared to oppose their plans to bulldoze the bus shelter. They are denying children in Holt a long-promised primary school, despite being given the money by the Government and the site being there to build on, and they have allowed our transport system to crumble, spending millions on shiny new buses in Norwich rather than embarking on a much-needed rural transport overhaul.
The Conservatives in Norfolk are also allowing the loss of vital convalescence care beds in Cromer and Cossey, which is worsening our healthcare crisis. They have driven our council to the brink of bankruptcy and are now having to go cap in hand to the Government to get bailed out after blowing £50 million on the white elephant that is the Norwich western link road, without an inch of road to show for it.
Now, to the shock of nobody, the Conservatives in Norfolk want to chicken out of elections for a second year running. They do not even have the guts to admit it: the letter from their administration to the Government was so unclear that they were asked to write it again and explain what they meant. Their assessment of whether our election should be cancelled read like a letter from Vicky Pollard: “Yeah, but no, but—”.
I made the point to a previous Secretary of State that the Conservative administration in Norfolk is totally unfit to preside over Norfolk’s future, and I remain steadfast in that opinion. Failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country—[Interruption.] Sorry, Ms McVey.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.
Steff Aquarone
As I said, I remain steadfast in the view that failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country. It is simply not right—they should be facing the voters in their areas and held accountable for their years of failure. Although referendums are one of the means for getting democratic legitimacy for local government reorganisation, I would far prefer for that legitimacy to be sought by councillors facing their electorate. I apologise for being out of breath—I ran back here quickly on your instructions, Ms McVey.
Local government reorganisation is too important for the Government to get wrong. It cannot be done to people; it must be done with them. A more collaborative approach from the Government that fully considers local character and issues and does not do this work at the expense of democratic legitimacy would be greatly welcomed.
I finish with a straightforward challenge to the Norfolk Conservatives running scared of an election: we are ready to face the ballot box in May. Are you?
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on the excellent points he made in his speech.
Local government holds a special place in our multilayered and multifaceted democracy. It is democratically accountable, inherently bottom-up and strongly community-minded. The average local authority delivers more than 800 different services, providing key day-to-day functions that represent, for most people, the most noticeable interactions with political choices and democratic management. Whether it is bins, potholes, recycling and waste, libraries, adult social care or SEND services, the most obvious impact of many people’s choices at the ballot box are those delivered at the local level in their parish, district or county council.
I am especially aware of that having served as a local councillor in the London borough of Bexley for 23 years and, on a regional level, as a London Assembly member for 13 years. It was a privilege to serve my constituents in those positions, just as it is as a Member of Parliament. That is why I know that local government deserves support and respect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that the Labour Government do not share that view.
Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I noted that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He is completely correct on that. However, my right hon. Friend was also completely correct to say that there was nothing in the Labour party manifesto that suggested a top-down, nationwide structural reorganisation of all local councils. There was no mention of riding roughshod over the wishes of local people and local government, but that is exactly the course the Government are pursuing. We have heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how the Government’s plans, which stretch far beyond the platform that they stood for at the election, will impact their local area and constituents.
The Government’s programme of so-called devolution is already having sweeping impacts on councils and local people—not least, as we have seen for the second time in as many years, with the likelihood of the cancellation of local elections across vast swathes of the country. It is telling that of the 63 councils offered the chance to postpone elections by the Government, nearly three quarters of those doing so are Labour run or have a Labour majority. Following on from the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), there are a further four local authorities where the Liberal Democrats have at least a share of power, and one where they are in outright control.
It is widely believed that Labour is denying democracy and running scared of voters by cancelling elections where it feels it will get a pasting. Independent voices—from academia to politics and the Electoral Commission—are urging that the elections should go ahead. Just recently, the Government told us they would. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the House on Monday:
“Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead…I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 58-59.]
Her argument was supported by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), who said:
“As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 60.]
He is surely correct in his assertion that this is what lies behind the Government’s actions. When 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote and the Government’s excuse is their own radically top-down and botched reorganisation of local government, it is no wonder that local people feel so ignored and insulted, as hon. Members have made clear today.
Let me make it clear again: the Conservative party’s position is that the elections should go ahead. Our line has been completely clear and consistent. This mass suppression of democracy is, perhaps, the most egregious of the many negative outcomes of the Government’s bungled restructuring programme, although it is far from the only one.
The greatest scandal comes in the Government’s approach to local councils as they seek to carry out this unmandated position. It is vital that local councils—the elected representatives of local people—and the communities in which they live are heard throughout any process affecting the make-up, functions and form of their local democratic institutions. Instead, Labour’s approach has been to dictate from Whitehall, forcing councils to sign up to a prescribed model of restructuring, imposed from the centre and leaving local people without a voice. We believe that true devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, elections and structure, but the Government have offered none of those things.
While local referenda are expensive and non-binding, they provide another collective voice that could feed into the debate about how people want to be represented. The voices of local people should be front and centre of any restructuring process, but sadly, given their current approach, even if there were local referenda, it appears likely that this Government would simply ignore any view that did not correspond with their own.
Jack Abbott
I think there is a short-term memory issue here. The hon. Gentleman talks about referendums, but the Conservative Government held a whole heap on mayoralties in 2012 and then ignored all the outcomes. He says he values local government, which is incredibly welcome, but his party hollowed out local government funding, and we have seen the cost of that. When the Conservatives were in power, they suspended a number of elections to consider local government reorganisation, including those involving the Leader of the Opposition—why has there suddenly been this volte-face in the last few weeks?
Gareth Bacon
Three local elections were delayed by one year in 2021, all of which were the result of local government reorganisations; a consultation took place with the authorities affected in advance and their views were taken on board. That is in complete contrast with what the Labour Government are doing right now. They are riding roughshod over the views of local people and cancelling elections for the second year running.
It is vital that communities get the real empowerment they deserve, that taxpayers get the accountability they pay for and that new structures face proper scrutiny. That is why, on Report and Third Reading of the devolution Bill, the Opposition urged the Government to look again and accept amendments to ensure that the Bill provided those key tenets; true to form, the Government ignored those entreaties. The Opposition will continue to vote against the Government in Parliament on their botched handling of this issue.
If the Government do not listen to local people, through whatever democratic means, we face a future for local government in which power is stripped from genuinely local authorities and people—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions—and centralised within geographically and demographically distant authorities instead. While the Government’s track record speaks for itself with rushed, top-down reorganisations of local government and higher council tax burdens on residents, the Conservatives believe that communities deserve a voice—not another expensive restructure that sidelines local priorities, moves decision making further away from voters and inflates the cost for taxpayers.
While referenda, like elections, could be ignored by a Government who appear indifferent to the views of voters, the Opposition believe in local voices and will continue to stand up for our local democratic institutions. Our electoral process should not be abused or bent to the will of a particular party for its own partisan benefit. Ministers should treat voters with respect instead of disdain, stop undermining our democratic system and let the people of this country make their own decisions.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On behalf of everyone, I thank you for the excellent way in which you dealt with the suspensions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation. He made the case on behalf of his constituents very well, and I was listening to what he said.
I also listened to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Many Members spoke up for the identity of their constituents and the culture and history of their constituencies. It is important that we are able to do that in this House, and I congratulate all Members on doing so. I will try as best I can to respond to the points they raised.
I will set out why we are reorganising local government and why it matters. Nearly a third of the population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government, which splits functions and services across county and district councils, slows down decisions as different councils try to agree and leads to fragmented public services. It is confusing for citizens in terms of who does what and who is responsible.
My constituency is in the Wirral, which was reorganised six years before I was born. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, over time, the Wirral has come to have its own identity, but people still have identities from long before. The county of Cheshire, which is near my constituency, still has a strong identity—as you will know, Ms McVey. It was reorganised in 2009, but, while the unitary authorities have grown in different ways, that Cheshire identity is still there.
This is a continuing journey, as Members have said. In the area of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, Leicestershire county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. We can all do better than that, and I want to work with local government to make that happen. We want to simplify local government and have single-tier, unitary councils everywhere, making stronger local councils that are equipped to create the conditions for growth, improve public services and empower communities. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the biggest reform to local government in 50 years. We want to make the most of that opportunity. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that everyone everywhere is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation can help to do that: with one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions, grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who made an important contribution, asked what the net effect would be. It is different for each area, which makes it hard to forecast, but I want to point out another issue. We are currently seeing spiking costs in particular areas, including SEND, as he will know well, children’s care, temporary accommodation and homelessness. I would be wary of drawing hard and fast conclusions because of the cost environment that we are in. We will have a number of opportunities to discuss the finances of local councils on the Floor of the House in the months to come, but I would be happy to discuss those issues with him. Local government finance is complicated but very important, and I noted his strong contribution.
Particularly in these areas, we want public services to be designed for people’s lives rather than in council silos. Bringing housing, public health and social care together under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is very important in the case of children’s care, where we want to take a preventive approach and improve parenting support.
Strong local government is the only way that we can really tackle deprivation and poverty in the round. People living in neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation especially deserve public services that will help them to reach their full potential. Rather than multiple councils with confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for making sure that its area turns a corner.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the time he has spent engaging with me on these issues. He will know that the Government took an unprecedented decision in relation to debt in Surrey, and we continue to be concerned about ensuring that we can reach financial sustainability, for all the reasons that he describes. I would say to his residents that their MPs are engaging with the Government and others on the subject. It is very serious, and we will continue to work together on it.
In early February, we expect to launch a consultation on proposals for the remaining 14 areas, including the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I know that he is actively engaged in the discussion on reorganisation in Leicestershire and has been encouraging his constituents to have their say, as he described—I applaud and welcome that. I reassure him and other Members that we take people’s views very seriously; as I said before, I was listening very carefully to the contributions that colleagues have made. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment form part of our judgment in looking at proposals for new councils, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution on that subject.
Like existing councils, new councils must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhoods to shape the places where they live. That is part of another area of policy in the Department; whether it is pride in place or the measures in the Bill that is going through the House at the moment, community engagement is important.
The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about precepts. Deciding on that process will be a part of the reorganisation. If she would like further details, I would be happy to correspond with her, but it is part of the overall set of arrangements that we need to decide.
Residents can make their views known through the upcoming consultation on local government reorganisation. The responses to the consultation will all be taken into account, and I hope that Members will consider this process as part of the discussion that we are having.
I thank Members for engaging. If there are issues that I have not picked up for reasons of time, I will respond to them individually in writing. All Members are most welcome to take part in the discussions and consultations on the reorganisation. In the end, this is about outcomes; we want to see our country grow economically and socially. I thank Members for taking part in making the process work.
Mr Bedford
I thank all Members from across the House for contributing to the debate. There is clearly passion across the House about our local areas and constituencies. Local decision making matters so much to our residents. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach, particularly in the light of my point that local people should always have the final say on structural changes in their areas. That could be achieved by introducing local referenda. I reiterate my point to the Minister and ask the Government to reconsider their position.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government reorganisation.
UK Wine Industry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I will call Tristan Osborne to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK wine industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank all the Members who are here. As we are running half an hour late—I appreciate your management of the Divisions earlier, Ms McVey—if Members are here for the bins, that debate will be in half an hour. I say that as a courtesy.
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on the UK wine industry—a personal passion—to discuss how can we build on a sector that already has strong roots in the community I serve and across the country. I notice we have some winegrowers and producers in the Public Gallery.
I have a natural bias, given my Kent heritage and my constituency being home to many established vineyards and growers. The north Kent chalk escarpment has a number of leading brands, including Chapel Down, with its famous Kit’s Coty sparkling white wine and Bacchus smooth white; Balfour, a grape wine producer in the weald; and Gusbourne—all established and high-quality producers. This is not just about high-quality producers, however, but the plethora of start-up and established small businesses growing across our country, not just in Kent but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The industry is a success story that we should celebrate. It is represented by extremely strong voices from the growers, alongside passionate advocates GB Wines, who have supported me, and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Coupled with producers and growers, they are strong advocates, but they are a small voice and need to be heard more loudly. We are discussing a genuinely dynamic and growing part of our rural economy. Our food and drink culture is part of our natural heritage and national story that we should celebrate.
The UK wine sector has moved from being a curiosity 20 to 30 years ago to a serious contender in the space of a single generation. It deserves serious attention from Government. For those who do not know, the 2025 harvest has been described by growers as a vintage of outstanding quality. After the driest summer on record, grapes ripened fully and harvest began three weeks earlier than in 2024. Estimates suggest production of around 15 million to 16 million bottles, potentially the second largest harvest ever in UK history. That demonstrates that, even within the constraints of the UK’s cool climate, British growers are capable of consistently producing high-quality wine at a commercial scale, through expertise, innovation and careful vineyard management.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Will the hon. Member join me in welcoming Hendred Vineyard to Westminster today, which has been exhibiting the best it has to offer at the “Taste of Oxfordshire” event? Does he agree that English sparkling wine is now better than champagne? Will he encourage MPs to purchase English sparkling wine rather than champagne?
Tristan Osborne
I went to the Oxfordshire event today and tried some of the wine, which is of outstanding quality from an established producer of 50 years; long may that success continue. The hon. Member is correct that we have award-winning sparkling wines, and across Europe we are now seen as a choice region for many champagne producers.
That sustained growth is being seen over the long term as well. In 2024, there were 1,030 vineyards in the UK— 87 more than the year before—occupying 4,000 hectares under vine. That is a 123% increase over a decade and production is now trending upward too, with 21.6 million bottles produced in 2023.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about bottles, but they are not the only way of packaging up wine. In my constituency, the innovative packaging company ecoSIP makes single serve wine portions but, bizarrely, regulations mean that they cannot sell them in 125 ml containers. Does my hon. Friend think that is a strange anomaly, and would the Minister care to comment on it later?
Tristan Osborne
Indeed, different ways of distributing wine have been established in this country by Tetra Pak and others. There are innovations that we need to consider and there are lessons to be learned from other European nations.
Demand is rising in whatever form. Sales of domestic wine increased by 10% in 2023, with sparkling wine sales up 187% since 2018. This is a real success story of our rural landscape.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Somerset is more often known for its cider production, but I have a brilliant, multi-award winning winemaker, Smith & Evans, based in Aller on the Somerset levels. As he rightly points out, sales of UK wine are increasing, but there are difficulties, such as the tax thresholds that are hampering growers’ innovation. Does he agree that the Government must justify the cumulative cost burden of extended producer responsibility for glass packaging alongside those rising costs?
Tristan Osborne
Absolutely, there are challenges in the industry and I will raise a number of them in a moment, but first I want to offer an overview of the success of the sector. There are a lot of hard-working wine growers and merchants. Despite some of the challenges, the industry is already showing real success and we need to support it.
British wine is gaining recognition not just in this country but across the world. Japan is now a key market and the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea and Denmark are all beginning to respect our wines and see them as a go-to product choice. The export market is expanding at pace and, with support, this could be a real positive multiplier in our rural communities, much maligned and struggling in many cases. This is a growth industry that could sustain our rural economy and grow it in a more promising way. Many practices that wine producers engage with are inherently sustainable and support the local community, both directly in terms of wine producing, but also in spin-offs such as restaurants and wine tourism.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I know the hon. Member trained as a teacher. Plumpton college educates many students in Mid Sussex and last year, it pledged £500,000 of fully funded training in the wine sector. Does he agree that to grow the wine industry, the Government also need to support skill development in rural economies and communities?
Tristan Osborne
I agree 100% that we do need to support more agricultural colleges. Clearly, individual courses will need to have throughput with apprenticeships into wine producers. There are not many of those and they are, at present, quite contained. I absolutely agree that, as the industry grows, we need to encourage skills development in that space.
I have other queries similar to the hon. Lady’s, and some of these policy interventions would not be expensive for the Government. On support for wine tourism, apparently 19% of our domestic wine is sold directly to visitors and local customers at the cellar door. These are not just transactions; they are experiences that anchor vineyards in their communities, create hospitality jobs and bring people into rural areas. A carefully designed relief on duty for on-site sales would not distort the market and threaten revenues but empower producers to grow sustainably. If we can offer small-scale support to the sector at this stage of the industry’s growth, we can realise and return greater revenues later.
We also need to safeguard what British wine actually means. Consumers deserve clarity, and our producers deserve protection. Wine labelled as “English”, “British” or “UK-made” should genuinely be made from 100% British grapes, and labelling reforms should enhance transparency, rather than create loopholes. At the same time, we need to beware of regulatory changes that could undermine domestic sparkling producers, and we should instead allow domestic producers the opportunity to make a protected geographical indication category for English prosecco, for example. Adding to that, it is vital that we do not dilute internationally recognised standards.
As has been mentioned, we of course need to support education, research and development, and the promotion of skills. Much of the grant funding that once supported equipment, education and research has fallen away over the years. In my view, if we are serious about growing a high-value rural industry, which is already showing this growth, strategic investment in training, research and overseas marketing is not a luxury; it is a requirement to oversee growth. We know that we operate in a global market, and competing wine nations, such as France and others close to us in Europe, are already providing this backing to their industries. We need to be in this space to ensure that our producers are competitive on a level playing field.
On exports more broadly, no new wine region has succeeded internationally without some initial state backing. If we want English wine on shelves in Tokyo, New York and Copenhagen, the Government must be a partner, which is why supporting wine producers at expo conferences and trade fairs is absolutely critical. Small amounts of money to support advertising in those locations could generate significant throughput and expansion in exports.
My colleagues are right to mention taxation, and we need to be open to considering a level playing field. When it comes to small cider and beer production in this country, tax relief is offered at the cellar door, and I believe that the Government could also consider doing that for small wine producers. I understand that a statutory review of the system is due in August, and I urge the Minister to lobby her colleagues in the Treasury, as tricky as that might be, to look at both the level and methodology of wine duty to ensure that it supports, rather than constrains, this growing sector. I understand that the challenges with the Treasury might be significant, but it is nevertheless worth me articulating that.
On packaging policy, there are of course real challenges. Under extended producer responsibility, the fee for glass is around eight times higher than in other comparable European schemes. Although I am an advocate for our environment, as well as for the sustainability of many workplaces, we know that the wine industry relies on glass as a premium product and this problematic double-charging has an impact on communities. Can EPR fees be reviewed in the light of the size or turnover of a company, or the scale of its operation? Although I accept the premise of extended producer responsibility, perhaps there are some areas that could be looked at.
Land use planning must also recognise the unique nature of vineyards. As has been mentioned, they are not simply farms but rural assets—they are agricultural enterprises that not only produce high-value crops but act as tourist destinations, attracting visitors to local economies. Balfour, which is a Kent-based winery that I have had the pleasure of visiting, now offers a bespoke restaurant and hotel. That is now standard in many wineries, and some are aligned with pubs and other hospitality venues. Tasting rooms, restaurants and event venues are also linked to many of these producers as they diversify their businesses. They are not just environmental stewards, maintaining landscapes and biodiversity; they are indigenous parts of our communities. As we have seen in other European nations, we should be celebrating and talking about that.
As we look ahead, the UK wine industry will be a vibrant part of our national story, and it is one that we can absolutely sell to the world. I believe that this vision is aligned with our Government’s strategy to create a more dynamic rural economy and to support the economies of the future—as our climate changes, this space is only going to grow. I believe that we can build those jobs and pride, while delivering world-class British produce in our communities.
Lastly, outside of Government, supermarkets and distributors have a part to play. If we visit France and go down a wine aisle, we see that the French actively celebrate their product and market it with a logo, and they encourage their people to purchase it. I believe that our supermarkets should have that responsibility as well, and we can encourage them to market English wines in a similar way. Domestic demand would dramatically increase if there was consumer access to the wines that we produce—I say that to restaurants as well.
The industry is now going through a phase where there is movement and tumult as new wineries open and close, but in 20 years’ time the sector will be double or triple the size it is today. The Government should enable that as much as possible and ensure that our rural economies benefit, so we get the pleasure of tasting the best wine in the world.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) on securing the debate and on his work in championing the UK’s growing wine industry. It is particularly good that he has managed to get it in dry January.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, nearly over. The UK has always been a major trade hub for wine. We are the world’s second largest importer of wine by value and volume, bringing in an estimated 1.7 billion bottles every year. The UK is also the 11th largest exporter of wine, so it is very much a two-way trade.
The scale and connectivity matter. The UK’s role as a global hub anchors expertise and investment across bottling, logistics, retail and export, and increasingly, as we have heard from my hon. Friend today, in viticulture. Our domestic wines have earned a reputation for exceptional quality, as demonstrated by the nine gold medals awarded to English wines at the 2025 International Wine and Spirit Competition in London. Nyetimber’s head winemaker, Cherie Spriggs, was named sparkling winemaker of the year for a second time, which is an exceptional achievement. She was the first person outside Champagne to win the award, thereby giving some credence to my hon. Friend’s claim that the only champagne to drink at the moment, even if we cannot call it that, is English sparkling wine.
Such achievements show the quality that British producers can attain when talent, innovation and investment come together and are applied to British viticulture. Across the country at fantastic vineyards such as Chapel Down’s Kit’s Coty in the constituency of my hon. Friend, the production of award-winning wines is translating into good jobs, as he pointed out, as well as tourism growth and renewed confidence in local, often rural, economies. We recognise the challenges the industry faces: a tougher trading environment, rising costs and tariffs. Yet through working in partnership with the industry, we intend to help it seize opportunities and ensure growth is felt by farmers and communities alike.
Exports of domestic wines are gaining real momentum. English and Welsh wines now ship to 45 countries, with exports more than doubling their share of total sales from 2021 to 2024. The 16 agrifood attachés from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs play a key role in this success by promoting UK wine, removing market access barriers and helping businesses navigate consumer demand and import procedures. The Government are supporting WineGB to boost the global profile of English and Welsh sparkling wine at Wine Paris in February. We want to ensure that British producers have a strong, confident presence in key global markets.
Our trade deals have enabled greater access to international markets for UK wines, whether through simplified customs procedures under our recently announced free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea or the approval of a greater range of winemaking practices for exports to Australia and New Zealand. The Government are working to make it easier and less costly for UK wine producers to do business abroad.
The success story of the UK wine sector does not start overseas; it begins at home. Industry forecasts suggest that the retail value of English and Welsh wines could reach £1 billion by 2040, but I wonder whether we can get there faster. With more than 1,100 vineyards, and production exceeding 10 million bottles, viticulture is one of the fastest-growing agricultural sectors in the country, and the Government are committed to supporting that growth. Through the farming innovation programme, we have committed at least £200 million through to 2030 to support viticulture. That will help producers invest, innovate and plan with confidence.
On whether we can change the regulations on single-serve wine portions, there has not yet been a decision on reforms, but we are keen to engage on ideas about innovation, including on that issue. I ask my hon. Friend to please keep in touch with me and the Department on that innovation and others so that we can see whether it is worth our while changing regulations that may have become out of date.
Wine tourism is a vital part of the success, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In 2023, about 1.5 million visits were made to vineyards and wineries, and tourism accounted for roughly a quarter of income for many estates. This is about jobs, economic opportunity and resilient rural economies. The Government are committed to supporting that vision, including by backing regional identity initiatives. Our ongoing efforts will ensure that regions gain the recognition that they deserve, both at home and abroad.
My hon. Friend mentioned cellar door relief. I would certainly welcome any data that he and the industry can provide me with so that we can see how we might deal with that. We have to get evidence before we can make changes to the way that such relief is given. If evidence exists out there, I strongly suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with the wine-growing bodies so that they can present it to us and we can consider it.
My hon. Friend mentioned packaging reforms. The Government are committed to moving towards a circular economy that delivers sustainable growth and reduces waste. Our collection and packaging reforms, including extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme, are designed to drive investment in modern recycling infrastructure. Extended producer responsibility is already used successfully across more than 30 countries and is a proven way to increase reusable packaging in the market and improve long-term environmental issues. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we have to move forward and try to get to a place where we can recycle much more packaging to ensure it does not go to landfill. The Government recognise the pressures that alcohol producers face, and we want to assist in any way we can.
The Government committed to upskilling the workforce, and we are working closely with Skills England and the Department for Education on the growth and skills levy, which includes apprenticeships. If my hon. Friend wants to convene the industry to talk about how that might be applied with respect to viticulture, I am more than happy to hear what he has to say when he has done that work.
The growth of the UK wine industry is impressive, but we are only just beginning to realise its full potential. It is about far more than bottles sold or medals won, although they are very important and we celebrate them; it is about skilled jobs, thriving rural economies and the confidence that comes when communities seek growth and opportunity on their doorstep. This Labour Government believe in backing British industry, supporting working people and building an economy that works for every part of the country. That is why, as a Minister, I am committed to working closely with the sector to drive innovation, expand exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK fully share the benefits of this success story.
Question put and agreed to.
Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the West Midlands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to open this debate. Waste collections and waste services are at the heart of what local authorities do, and underpin an essential part of the daily service that they provide to their taxpayers. However, over the last 12 months there has been a breakdown in waste collection services in Birmingham, which has impacted the wider west midlands area, including my own constituency in the borough of Walsall, because of the year-long industrial action in the Labour-run city.
The industrial action has led to rubbish being piled high on the streets, fly tipping across the city and, in neighbouring boroughs such as mine, rats—or as they have become known, “squeaky blinders”—running rampant through the streets. The Army has even been called in to manage a logistical operation to prevent a public health disaster. The region is being reported right across the globe for all the wrong reasons. I spoke with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who is sadly unable to be with us today; he reported that the situation in his town is, in some areas, getting worse.
I want to start by focusing on some positives from my own Conservative borough of Walsall. Like all boroughs, Walsall faces challenges with waste collection, waste management and, importantly, waste crime. Just before Christmas, our council cabinet approved a new waste strategy for 2025 to 2035: “Waste Not, Want Not: Walsall’s Journey to Sustainability”. At its heart, it recognises that waste management is fundamental to public health.
Central to the ambition will be the opening of a new state-of-the-art household waste recycling centre and waste transfer station in my own Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. That £32 million investment is designed to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill by improving recycling rates and sorting capacity. It has the capacity to manage up to 40,000 tonnes of waste a year. A reuse shop and workshop area will also operate on site, refurbishing items for resale and keeping usable goods out of the waste stream.
Last September our council invested a further £4.4 million in key areas of environmental enforcement, which was seen as a priority by members of the public. That additional support includes a fly-tipping crackdown, an expansion of fixed-penalty notices, bulky-waste enforcement and an expansion of CCTV—things that, as I know from my own inbox and social media, matter to people. That series of initiatives will have a significant impact on ensuring better environment management. I congratulate the council on it.
Good environmental management and waste collection is also massively underpinned by networks of volunteers who, week in and week out, go about their communities to clear rubbish or pick up litter. In my own constituency, we are greatly supported by volunteers such as Mike Hawes in Aldridge, Bev Cooper in Pheasey Park Farm and Martin Collins in Pelsall—to name but a few. They give their time freely to maintain civic pride in our communities. I also commend the work of Keep Britain Tidy, an organisation that helps foster thousands of people taking action to reduce litter, protect nature and create a cleaner, greener future for everyone.
Improving the environment on our doorsteps is so important. Positive action by local councils such as my own in Walsall, along with a strong network of community volunteers assisted by organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, are helping us promote environmental management and responsibility, to reduce waste crime and improve our ability to focus on improved rates of waste management and recycling.
The same cannot be said of our nearest neighbours in Birmingham. When there is a major industrial waste dispute on the doorstep, that impacts on neighbouring communities and the wider region—as the strike in Birmingham has most definitely demonstrated. The ongoing saga that is the Birmingham bin strike has now entered its second year. The whole strike is causing massive reputational damage to the United Kingdom’s second city and to the wider west midlands region. Indeed, the battering that the city has taken stretches across the globe, with news outlets such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, under the headline “Rats on the loose”, and the international press openly debating the mayhem in the midlands as those squeaky blinders ran riot.
The sheer cost to the taxpayer is also simply eye-watering. Between January and August last year, the council spent £8.4 million on agency staff and a further £5 million on outsourced contractors—a staggering total of £1.65 million per month. That is three times the monthly spend on waste collection services in 2024, which were costing £533,000 per month—all this from a council that is effectively bankrupt. At the same time, it is estimated that the council has lost £4.4 million in revenue as it was forced to suspend garden waste services to prioritise waste collections.
If the strike continues until the end of March, the one-off costs, including additional street cleaning and security as well as lost income, are anticipated to rise to £14.6 million. On 28 January 2025, almost a year ago, Birmingham city council acknowledged its extremely poor recycling rates, which are the second lowest of any unitary authority in the country at only 22.9%. That is a far cry from the 65% target expected by local authorities in 2035. Of course, such was the impact of the strikes across the city that one of the first services to be cancelled was recycling.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am sorry to have missed the start of the right hon. Lady’s speech. I am listening carefully to what she says. I am curious to know whether she raised concerns about the cancellation of services in Birmingham in the days when the authority was suffering the sharpest cuts in funding of any metropolitan council, amounting to 40p in the pound for every Brummie.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my Birmingham neighbour, for his intervention. In relation to the issue of waste, my focus is the impact on my constituency. It is just over 10 years since I was first elected, and this is the worst situation that I have ever seen on my doorstep. I have staff members living in the Labour-run Birmingham city council area who still have wrapping paper from Christmas 2024 in their recycling bins.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I apologise for missing the first moments of the debate. This situation is having a profound impact, and what is going on is a travesty. There is a complete failure of leadership. This is bleeding out into the wider area. My constituency borders Birmingham, and we have streets of two halves—one half is in the Birmingham city council area, where the bins are piling up, and the other half is in Bromsgrove, where the bins are collected. We are seeing an acute rise in fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a failure of leadership, and that there is no excuse for a global city in a developed G7 country to be facing a leadership failure this acute?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are talking about the UK’s second largest city. I really worry about its reputation and about the distinct lack of political leadership. Our mayor seems to want to wash his hands of the issue. I try and try to raise the matter in this House, much to the annoyance of Mr Speaker, but I know that there are residents across Birmingham, and friends of mine, who find this deeply frustrating. They pay their council tax, and do not get this most basic of services.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member agree that it was under the previous Government that unelected commissioners were imposed on Birmingham city council by a previous Conservative Secretary of State, Michael Gove? Since that day, it has been run by unelected commissioners. She is trying to blame the political leadership, which in effect is held to ransom by the commissioners. Is she saying that it was the wrong decision to impose unelected commissioners on Birmingham?
Wendy Morton
No, I am not. The reason why the commissioners were put in place was that Labour-run Birmingham city council was failing. That is why the commissioners came in. I am saying that we are facing a lack of political leadership.
I try to raise this issue in various fora, but nobody seems to want to get it resolved. What bothers me most is that there are residents who pay their council tax and who need a voice. They need somebody to stand up alongside other Birmingham MPs and councillors and say, “It is time to get this fixed.” The other reason why I am standing up on this issue is that I have constituents who work in the sector. They are being impacted, as are the peripheral parts of my constituency, as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). It is my constituents who have to pay the extra cost for the extra fly-tipping. That cannot be fair.
The net result of cancelling recycling is that the already poor figure of 22% has plummeted to just 15%. There are major fly-tipping hotspots right across the city; when bins go uncollected for months on end, fly-tipping respects no borders. In Pheasey Park Farm ward, which borders the Birmingham city council area, we have seen a constant uptick in people crossing the border to fly-tip.
In all of this, the point about the consistent lack of political leadership keeps cropping up. Where has the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands been through all of this? Nowhere. As recently as 18 December, he said on Radio West Midlands:
“I don’t employ the workforce”.
He also said:
“I have done all I can.”
To be honest, to the outside world that does not appear to have been an awful lot—that is my reply, Mr Mayor.
The mayor may not employ the workforce—I get that—but he knows the reputational damage that is being done not just to Birmingham but to the wider west midlands. As the most senior elected politician in the region, he should have been far more proactive and visible in ensuring that a resolution was found, or in encouraging people to get round the table to sort the situation out. Does anyone believe that had Andy Street still been the Mayor of the West Midlands, he would not have moved heaven and earth to ensure that the escalation of the strike was stopped, and the dispute resolved, at the earliest opportunity? I am pretty damn certain that he would have done so.
Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, some of whom were appointed as far back as September of last year, have responded to me and others in the House, but it appears that they have not even held meetings with the leaders of Birmingham city council so that a resolution can be moved towards.
Laurence Turner
I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is indeed being generous with her time. I listened to her comments about the former Mayor of the West Midlands with half a smile on my face; in my constituency I find that I have to chase up on endless promises made to my constituents about things that would be delivered—promises that were as real as fairy dust. However, that is a topic for another day. Does the right hon. Lady accept, and I say this as a former trade union official, that there are only ever two parties to a dispute? In this case, they are the union and the council. Those are the two parties who need to sort out this dispute. To suggest otherwise gives an impression to our constituents that is not accurate.
Wendy Morton
No—with all due respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, there may be only two parties who can find a resolution, and I would be the first to admit that I am not a trade union specialist nor a trade union member, but I am saying there needs to be leadership on behalf of the residents, with someone saying that we need to get this resolved once and for all. That is what is absolutely lacking.
If the Mayor of the West Midlands will not show any political leadership, Ministers should surely show some. Where are the leaders of Labour Birmingham city council? Councillor John Cotton walked away from negotiations on 9 July; that is 196 days ago today. To me, that is not political leadership; it is letting down the communities that he serves and that elected him.
We constantly hear the refrain that the hands of the political leadership at Birmingham city council are tied, because, of course, of the intervention of the commissioners, which was highlighted earlier. If we accept that, then we also have to accept that the commissioners are the appointees of the Government, and are now—under this Government—responsible to Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is surely where we should be getting the political leadership, or even common sense, that is badly needed to resolve this dispute once and for all.
This strike is harming residents, it is harming local communities and it is harming our reputation. As recently as last week, civic leaders were calling for urgent action to end this dispute, and they quite rightly commented:
“Waste collection is not an optional extra, it is a fundamental public service”.
The Government must take heed, because waste collection is a fundamental service. When people cannot manage waste collections, they cannot manage their local authority, because they have fundamentally let down their residents at the most basic level.
To conclude, now is the time for action on the part of this Government to get to grips with waste management in Birmingham, to ensure that this ongoing industrial action stops impacting not just Birmingham residents but those in the wider west midlands, including the borough of Walsall.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I also remind them that the latest that this debate can go to is 6.8 pm.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. I will be absolutely clear about what is happening in Birmingham: this is not a strike for more money; it is a strike against brutal pay cuts, bullying, and union-busting.
Bin workers employed by Birmingham city council have been on all-out strike since March because the council started downgrading their jobs, slashing wages by up to £8,000 a year. In some cases that is a quarter of their income gone overnight. That is not reform; that is robbery. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, these crucial public servants, who we clapped for during covid, are being expected to lose a huge chunk of their wages, something that would drive many of them into poverty. Would MPs in this place accept that proposal? I very much doubt it.
It has now escalated; since December, agency workers have joined the strike. That is unprecedented. These workers were brought in to break the strike, but instead they are striking themselves. Why? Because of the bullying, harassment and blacklisting they faced for standing with the union. It is unprecedented; as a former trade union organiser, I have never heard anything like it. One agency manager was even caught on video threatening workers with being barred from permanent jobs if they joined the picket line. That is straight-up intimidation, and it is now the subject of legal action by Unite the union.
What is the council’s response? Further strikebreaking, this time on an industrial scale. Despite denying it, the council’s own figures expose the truth. Since the strike began, it has been spending over £1 million extra every month on agency labour and outsourcing—new agencies, new contractors and millions handed out not to workers but to private firms. The result has been more than £20 million wasted so far, rising by almost £70,000 per day. That money could have settled the dispute many, many times over. In fact, it nearly did.
In ACAS talks last year, a ballpark deal was agreed, with compensation payments of around £14,000 to £20,000 per worker. It was cheaper than the strike and the legal claims, sensible and fair. Why did it not happen? It was blocked by the council leadership and Government-imposed commissioners. Now, the very same council that blocked that deal faces over 400 legal claims due to the mishandling of the dispute. These are claims that its own legal position has described as extremely weak, and that will cost millions of pounds more. Let me kill one more myth: settling this dispute does not create a new equal pay risk. That does not come from Unite; it is the advice of one of the country’s leading KCs. The real legal danger comes from not settling.
Here is the truth: this strike can be ended. The money is there; the deal was there to be made. What is missing is the political will. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government must step in now, because every day this strike is on workers are paying the price, communities are suffering, and public money is being burnt.
This dispute is not inevitable; it is an ideological choice. It is time to change that choice for the benefit of the striking workers who want to resume their jobs serving the people of Birmingham—people who are suffering at the moment, as outlined by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, because of the choices being made by the council.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am a trade unionist and a Unite member. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a trade union lawyer, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), in my many years as a member of the trade union movement I never came across anything like this.
Back in 2009, the then Conservative-Lib Dem-Green-run Leeds city council tried to take up to a third of the pay away from Leeds refuse workers. What flowed from that was a strike by GMB and Unison members against that swingeing, unfair pay cut that lasted for three months—the longest continuous dispute in Yorkshire since the miners’ strike. That dispute ended successfully for the workers. What we have here is a dispute that has lasted for 10 months, and from the outside people are wondering why on earth it has not settled. But we know why.
A ballpark figured was agreed, but the leadership of the council, and, crucially, the commissioners—unelected, of course—stepped in to block that deal, so the strike continues, with all that means for the workers and the residents of the fine city of Birmingham. We need to put it very clearly on the record that to expect refuse workers, drivers and loaders doing an important job to accept a pay cut of up to £8,000—which can be up to a quarter of their wages—is simply unacceptable.
I know, of course, the history of Birmingham city council as a Labour council. However, if Labour colleagues and trade unionists stepped back from that background, more and more colleagues would be speaking out against it. One of the mottoes of the trade union movement is “an injury to one is an injury to all”, and that applies whichever party’s leadership is running the council.
I pay tribute not only to the striking workers, because it is not easy to go on strike and people do not do it unless it is a last resort—whatever the newspapers and right-wing politicians might say—but also to the agency refuse workers who are now on strike.
Tahir Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that the narrative played out by the leadership of the council is that the dispute will have a huge impact on equal pay? If that is the case, just as Unite has published the KC’s advice, should the council not show the public its own advice so that we can all see what it has received?
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend, himself a diligent and passionate Birmingham MP, makes a very important point. I agree with him that, if the council leadership or the commissioners have that legal advice, they should indeed publish it, because the advice of Unite’s King’s counsel, Oliver Segal, is very clear and runs contrary to the representations made by the other side.
We know what the block is. We know the awful position faced by workers in Birmingham—a pay cut of up to £8,000. We know the awful situation faced by Birmingham residents. It seems to me that this is a matter for all trade unionists across the country, who want to see a fair resolution to the dispute. It is so frustrating to see that it was so close, but was scuppered, it seems, by the leadership of the council and by the commissioners.
What can unblock that blockage? What can see things return to how they should be, and what can result in a fair resolution for workers and residents? Only intervention from the Government can do that. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government should get involved, unblock that process and help to fairly end this dispute. That, I think, is what the public want and what trade unionists want.
I want to finish by paying tribute to members of Unite the union who have been on strike since March. They will not like the inconvenience that is inevitably caused by strikes to local residents, because they live there too. Too often, when people talk about trade unionists and workers, they talk about them as if they are not local residents themselves—and they are. Those Birmingham residents should not be asked to take pay cuts of up to £8,000. They cannot afford it, especially in this cost of living crisis. They are right to step up to the plate to defend their working terms and conditions and pay, not just for themselves but for others. This is not a dispute to try to get a pay rise; it is about defending pay at a time when people need it more than they have done for decades because of the cost of living crisis.
I pay tribute to those people and to trade unionists from other trade unions who have shown real solidarity with these workers, in the best traditions of the labour and trade union movement. I hope the Minister, when she responds, can give us some hope that the Government will intervene and bring a fair end to this dispute.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate.
Birmingham is the city where I was born and raised, and the one that I have had the privilege to represent for the past eight years. It is a proud, resilient city of hard-working families, students, older people, businesses and communities who care deeply about the place they call home. Yet for more than a year, those communities have been living with a broken waste collection service: overflowing bins, rising fly-tipping and streets that do not feel clean or safe. These are not minor inconveniences; they are public health risks, environmental hazards and a source of stress for many families, for those with mobility challenges, for older residents and for everyone who cares about their neighbourhood.
Last year I wrote to the council, urging it to declare a public health emergency, and it did so. That declaration allowed the Government to provide logistical support and for waste to be collected. But the reality is that the dispute has dragged on for far too long, and residents are paying the price. We need to be honest about how we got here. Years of Conservative austerity and underfunding of local government hollowed out councils such as Birmingham, with nearly £1 billion of funding having been cut since 2010, the workforce halved, services that people relied on stretched and resilience stripped away.
On top of that, historical equal pay liabilities—some dating back decades—have placed immense pressure on the council’s finances. Those pressures are not abstract numbers. They shape whether residents get their bins emptied, whether streets are clean and whether public services can function effectively. That context matters, because it explains why any solution now must be sustainable. It is about fairness: fairness for women in being paid the same as men, and fairness for the citizens of Birmingham in knowing that their money is being spent on the services they need.
Let me be clear about my position: I am on the side of Birmingham’s residents. I am not here to take sides between the council and the union, or to attack anyone involved. My concern is the people who live, work and raise families in our city, and who depend on a clean and reliable waste service. I support the transformation of Birmingham’s waste service because, before the industrial action began, I regularly received complaints from constituents about missed collections. Residents and businesses deserve a service that is modern, reliable and in line with other major cities.
Preet Kaur Gill
Prior to coming to this place, I worked for the city council for many years. I saw the impact of equal pay liabilities, and how they cripple public finances and the very services that the last Labour Government invested in. Children’s services were decommissioned and youth services were stripped away, and many of my communities do not want to see our city council’s public finances go in the same direction. That is why the council must take legal advice, and the right steps, to agree and come to a settled negotiation.
The council does now have a plan for transformation, including a new fleet of council-owned vehicles, changes to how services will be monitored and a phased roll-out of a new collection model from June 2026. But transformation cannot mean endless disruption, and it cannot come at the cost of reopening equal pay liabilities, which would put the council back into crisis and risk hundreds of millions more being taken away from public services—this is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about.
Our Government also have a role to play. Having raised the issue of fair funding for Birmingham with Ministers, I was pleased to see that the local government finance settlement will increase the council’s core spending power by more than £650 million over the next three years. Ministers must now also hold Birmingham’s commissioners to account; they must bring both sides back to the table and reach a negotiated settlement. Leadership and accountability are required at every level.
Next week, I will meet directly with Unite workers to hear their perspective, to understand the challenges they face and make sure that their voices are a part of any solution. Let me be clear that residents, not politics, must be the priority. My message to all parties is simple: “Enough is enough. It is time to return to the table in good faith. It is time for negotiation, compromise and delivery.” The council, the commissioners, the workers and the union leadership all have a responsibility to make that happen. The Government must ensure that the conditions are in place for a settlement to succeed, alongside holding commissioners to account, and secure agreement, not stalemate.
Birmingham is a proud city, and its people are patient, but that patience has been tested long enough. It is time to end this dispute and restore a reliable waste service that puts residents and businesses first.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is an ardent and extremely consistent advocate for Birmingham despite not being a Member of Parliament for the city. Her constituency borders Birmingham, and she has highlighted the devastating impact that the bin strikes have been having on her constituents.
Earlier this month marked one year since the bin strikes began, yet the council walked out of negotiations in the summer. It has made absolutely no effort to secure a negotiated settlement to the dispute. For more than a year, Birmingham city council has continued in its pursuit to cut the pay of essential workers. After bankrupting the city, it is diverting what little taxpayer money it has available and using it, not to reverse some of the budget cuts it installed, but to prolong a process that has caused rubbish to pile up in our streets. At no point has the council leadership—or this Government–– done the one thing it should have all along and admitted who is truly at fault for stalling negotiations, inflicting misery upon residents and prolonging this saga.
It was a Labour-run council whose incompetence bankrupted the city before passing a budget that slashed public services by £300 million, raised council tax bills by 18% and made the cuts to the waste management service that triggered the dispute. It was a Labour-run council that stood idly by while the deal put forward by its own managing director was vetoed by the Government-appointed commissioners, and it is a Labour-run council that has refused to re-enter negotiations for six months, even as the agency staff it hired to replace the striking workers have joined the picket line in droves.
Reports due before Birmingham city council show that attempts to break the bin strikes have already cost more than £33 million. That figure includes lost income from waste services, emergency street cleansing, security and temporary facilities. Even that figure is likely to underestimate the true cost once spending on agency staff and contractors is fully accounted for. While that is happening, nearly £20 million of those costs are being met by cutting spending elsewhere, placing further strain on already underfunded services and raising a fundamental question about value for money. A dispute that could have been resolved at a fraction of the cost has been allowed to spiral into a financial and service delivery disaster.
While the council drags its feet on reaching a deal that it has spent inordinate amounts of money to avoid, it is the residents who are harmed the most. It is the residents who are being asked to tolerate collapsing services while tens of millions of pounds are burned on band-aid solutions. Across the city, most have gone weeks —sometimes even months—without a single bin collection. Piles of waste have become the new normal. As the streets grow dirtier, fly-tipping has surged, unchecked and unchallenged. On many occasions, I have been out late at night, side by side with local community organisations, collecting rubbish from the streets of Birmingham. For more than a year now, my constituents have filled in where the council is nowhere to be seen, doing the job it has failed to do. The situation has got so bad that some feel it is right to blame local residents for not taking it on themselves.
Let me be clear: the people of Birmingham take pride in their communities. They care about their streets, their neighbours and their city just as much as anyone else. They do not deserve to be scapegoated for a mess that is not of their making. The blame lies squarely with the Labour-run council, which has broken the social contract between itself and Birmingham’s 1.2 million residents. It took taxpayer’s money to deliver essential services and failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It did not need to come to this. A proactive council would have sat down, found a solution and put residents first. Instead, it has let things deteriorate to the point that the Army has had to be called in to clean our streets.
This situation exposes the limits of pretending that this is purely a local matter. The Government have repeatedly shirked responsibility by claiming that this is a matter for the local authorities, but Birmingham city council is under a statutory intervention. Government-appointed commissioners are involved in improving outcomes, yet Ministers have repeatedly sought to distance themselves from responsibility. If the Government have a role in overseeing decisions, they also have a responsibility to ensure that those decisions are not prolonging misery or unnecessarily inflating costs.
Ultimately, Birmingham’s residents want two things: to have their bins collected safely and reliably, and to be confident that their money is not being squandered through mismanagement at a local and national level. If the council and Government cannot manage even to consider a negotiated settlement, it will be the residents who are forced to pay for their mistakes. As I have repeatedly asked in the main Chamber, I ask the Minister whether the Government will now ask Birmingham city council leaders to sit at the table with Unite the union and come to a resolution, so that residents can have a proper bin service?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Good afternoon, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate.
I am a proud trade unionist, and I declare my membership of Unite the union. For generations, trade unions have fought for workers’ rights against right-wing Governments, which always have the richest and most powerful economic interests behind them and are often supported and propped up by a hostile media. Having an ideologically right-wing Government as one’s opponent is, in some ways, rather easy; working-class people can generally recognise that a Conservative Government will be diametrically opposed to their interests.
But the British political landscape is changing. Now, working-class people also need to appreciate that any future Reform Government would be no friend of theirs. Reform was bitterly against the Employment Rights Act 2025, though its Members are not in the Chamber today—and when we look at its latest recruits, it is abundantly clear that they are no friends of working-class communities. But, as a trade unionist and as a proud Labour party member, what really devastates me is that the Labour party under the current national leadership is abandoning the bin workers of Birmingham. For a party born out of the trade union movement to imagine that it is okay for workers to receive an £8,000 pay cut is nothing short of a betrayal of what a proud Labour party should always stand for.
As Gordon Brown once said:
“Leaders come and leaders go”.
But the mission remains the same. At one time in the dispute, Unite were making progress with the Birmingham city council managing director, Joanne Roney. Unite states that she met with general secretary Sharon Graham in ACAS talks last summer. They discussed a “ballpark agreement” that both sides could work with as the basis of a written deal, and agreed to meet again in two days’ time.
Joanne Roney then delayed the meeting, messaging:
“I need some more time to deal with the commissioners. I’ve asked the team to keep you informed and ACAS advised. Not clear on the issues but you know the discussion is not just resting with me...also the commissioners...it needs wider approval. Frustrating for us all.”
Then she went quiet for three weeks. Finally, she messaged again:
“Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. It’s been a challenge for me, it’s not how I usually do business and I share your frustration. However, I now have an offer for you to consider and will meet on Sunday, I am free after 5, I hope you know I fought really hard for this offer which is the closest I can get to what we discussed.”
Finally, there was a second meeting, with a written offer agreed by the Government-imposed commissioners, but it was much lower than the ballpark deal, and was by no means a fair offer. Members should bear in mind that workers are getting a pay cut of up to £8,000. The council presented this as a “take it or leave it” offer, then stopped talks and sent out redundancy letters in July. It has not come back to talks since then.
All this time, while thinking it is acceptable for working people to become poorer by thousands of pounds, Birmingham city council are spending millions on the dispute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, more than £20 million has already been spent on the strike, including on lost revenue and agency fees. How much does a fair deal cost, Minister? What farcical behaviour from Birmingham council, the commissioners and, frankly, any political administration at any level of government that claims to be left wing and socialist in its nature. The truth is that I do not care about the Tories or Reform. I know what they both are. I know who they represent in this place, just like I know what and who the Labour party should always stand for.
As well as asking what a fair deal would cost, I put the following questions to the Minister. Does she think that working-class people should be £8,000 worse off? Does she agree with agency and contract workers being used to break a strike? Does she have any appreciation that the Labour party is facing electoral oblivion in Birmingham, and that the polling from Scotland and Wales before the devolved Parliament elections in May looks dire? Does the Minister not see that issues like this in Birmingham, cutting welfare to disabled people, letting down WASPI women, delaying the Hillsborough law, trying to limit people’s right to protest and removing citizens’ right to trial by jury are not the policies and actions of the real Labour party?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. Before you do, I think we are going off topic. Can we keep to the topic?
Preet Kaur Gill
I say gently and respectfully to my hon. Friend, who is not from Birmingham, that given that I was born and raised there and have represented a seat for eight years, I can see the difference that the Labour Government are making after the impact of austerity, when nearly £1 billion was taken from the largest council in Europe. Pride in Place money is being given to Woodgate and Bartley Green, an area with a high population of people not in education, employment or training. It is about investing in our communities. My hon. Friend is doing a disservice to the Labour-run Birmingham council and the Government. Since coming to power, they have been trying to make a difference for the communities I represent.
Brian Leishman
I might not be from Birmingham, as people can tell from my accent, but what I am is a trade unionist. This involves trade union disputes. I am also here to represent not only the communities of Alloa and Grangemouth but the wider working class, including the working class of Birmingham, and it is undoubtedly working-class people—the bin strikers and their families—who are being impacted. No one in this Chamber or in this place should have any doubt that they have my full solidarity.
My final question to the Minister is this: will she tell the leadership that the grassroots members in constituency Labour parties up and down the country think that the commitment to socialist ideals and principles is something we should make and actually be proud of? History shows that Labour Governments do not come around that often, but when they do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) said, working-class people absolutely do benefit. I make no apologies. We have done good things in government, but I am greedy. After 14 years of Conservative austerity, I want more, and I make no apologies for that.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for introducing this important debate.
I note with dismay that as Birmingham’s bin strike reaches its first anniversary, the people of Birmingham continue to pay the price. The fundamental cause of the current dispute, and the pay cuts and the reduction in pay progression, lies in the Labour council’s settlement of the 2017 bin strike. That caused the equal pay claims, which forced two section 114 notices on to the city council in 2023.
But the Conservatives should check their own record. For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less. Since then, the people of Birmingham have had to suffer what Councillor Paul Tilsley referred to as the four horsemen of the apocalypse: council tax hikes, significant service reductions, the sale of important city assets, and hundred of staff redundancies. Last March, a major incident was declared due to the 17,000 tonnes of uncollected waste.
Furthermore, there has been a revolving door of senior management for around a decade. As senior managers have left for jobs elsewhere, the residents of Birmingham have been left to foot the bill. As my Liberal Democrat colleague and Birmingham city councillor Deborah Harries said:
“The very least a citizen can expect from their council, in return for paying their council tax, is for their bin to be collected.”
That basic service has not been delivered in Birmingham for more than a year, despite residents’ being asked to pay a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, on the back of a 10% increase last year.
Currently, agency crews are collecting residents’ general waste every week, but recycling and garden waste collections are suspended, leaving families with more rubbish than they can contend with.
Ayoub Khan
Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is not just the lack of green and recyclable waste collections, but that communities who live in inner-city areas, where more individuals live in a particular home and that home is terraced, suffer most?
Manuela Perteghella
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I understand that recycling is now at 15% in this authority; given that there have been no weekly recycling collections for almost a year, it is a surprise that any recycling gets done. Perhaps it is the result of the good work of residents, who are doing their best to take rubbish to the tips, despite the failings of the council and the Government. Missed collections and overflowing communal bins for flats are all too common, waste to landfill has doubled and recycling rates have crashed. Sadly, I suspect that Birmingham might now be the worst-performing authority for recycling in the country.
Fly-tipping is another recurring issue, not only in Birmingham but across the west midlands, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. Rubbish, furniture, electrical goods and all sorts of waste get dumped on the streets of our cities, on lay-bys and on farmland. That matters deeply to our constituents. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to commit to proper community policing, and to a rural crime strategy that includes fly-tipping. Will the Minister set out steps to help support local authorities and enforcement agencies to tackle that environmental crime?
Back in Birmingham, the Liberal Democrat group leader on the council, Councillor Roger Harmer, informed me that there have been no negotiations since July 2025. The council and Unite are in deadlock, and Unite’s mandate for industrial action is active until at least March 2026. I say to my Labour colleagues that talks are needed urgently, as the alternative is the strike continuing into the summer, which would not benefit anyone.
In two of the 10 constituencies in the council area, over half of children are living in poverty. The financial fallout of the bin strikes and the cumulative financial crises of the council are being felt in the hungry bellies of increasing numbers of children. I hope that the councillors, trade unionists and the Government keep those children and their parents in mind and make a renewed effort to end this crisis.
The deadlock must end, and Birmingham’s Labour councillors need to get around the table to negotiate, or step aside to make space for those who will. Likewise, the Government must tackle the funding crisis in local government, and they must get a grip on adult and children’s social care, on provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and on the prevention of homelessness to help alleviate the financial burden on councils.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. She is an absolute champion for her local area, and I know how hard she has worked to secure this debate on Government support for waste collections in Birmingham and the west midlands—a debate that could have been completely avoided, had the Government done due diligence on ensuring that local authorities deliver for local communities.
A person is in a topsy-turvy world when they find themselves in utter agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but that is the situation I find myself in this afternoon. In response to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I say that despite his passionate speech, he does not have a monopoly on representing working-class people. I happen to represent lots of working-class people and am working class myself. It was because I am working class that I joined the Conservative party. The hon. Member talks about the electoral oblivion of the Labour party. I suggest that it is socialist speeches of the 1980s that will destine the Labour party to electoral oblivion, not the current policies that they are putting out today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is absolutely right to bring forward this issue today. Quite frankly, it is a national embarrassment that one of our nation’s greatest cities—indeed, the second largest in the country—is facing a situation like this. As my hon. Friend said, the “squeaky blinders” are running freely down the streets and into piles of rubbish found outside hard-working people’s homes. I certainly would not want to see rats in my street, and I am sure that all Members taking part in this debate can absolutely agree with that. What is just as embarrassing is that, on a local and national level, the Government and Labour-run Birmingham city council have failed to address the situation soon enough.
As has already been mentioned here today, the waste management dispute began in March 2025, with some residents having had no collections since Christmas 2024. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is now January 2026 and the Government have stood idly by. This Government shamefully still fail to recognise the importance of this issue. On 13 January they referred to the waste dispute as a “local issue” and left it to their failing colleagues at Birmingham city council. The industrial action taking place in Birmingham has left residents without their rubbish collected for well over a year. That is simply not good enough; it is chaotic and shambolic.
The issue is much more than bins not being collected; as colleagues have highlighted, there are serious implications for public health. As the hon. Member for Leeds East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, there are commissioners in Birmingham city council, and the Government put those commissioners into the local authority. The Government have legislative cover to commission and start talks for negotiations to end the strike. So far, the political leadership of this Government have determined not to do that. That is a stain on the character of this Government, and it has caused a reduction in services for the people of the great city of Birmingham.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills outlined, the fiscal ineptitude of Birmingham city council is deeply concerning. It has allowed taxes to soar and effectively bankrupted itself through extra spending and the using up of its reserves. In other words, it has deeply let down residents in Birmingham and the west midlands. There is a clear need for Government intervention. Instead, Birmingham is set to receive one of the most generous payouts from the Government’s unfair funding review—a review designed to benefit poorly run, Labour-run urban councils. That narrative explains itself.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something fundamentally wrong when a council like Birmingham city council has been almost rewarded in its funding settlement for failure?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend has made that point expertly. That is also on the back of a 7.5% increase in council tax after a previous 10% increase.
Finally, after that intervention, I would like to piggyback on my right hon. Friend and thank local Conservative councils, particularly Walsall, and recognise the work of Keep Britian Tidy and the individual volunteers who my right hon. Friend mentioned, who go to their communities to clear rubbish. It is great to hear that there are still individuals who take pride in what their local area looks like and who want to protect nature and work together towards a greener future. I am delighted that Aldridge-Brownhills will have a new household waste recycling centre and a waste transfer station opening next month, and that it will actively help reduce landfill waste and increase recycling.
To conclude, I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend and, it turns out this afternoon, also Members from across the House, who say that waste collections are a fundamental service. That is fact. It is paramount that the Government take decisive action to resolve the ongoing waste management saga in Birmingham and the west midlands. That has been clearly called for from all quarters—the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and independent Members, and us as the official Opposition. They all want to see leadership from the Government to control the people that they put in to control that local authority, to bring them to the table. I encourage the Minister to do that, because this problem has simply gone on for too long.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue.
I share the concerns and frustrations that have surfaced in the debate. The industrial action has gone on far too long. The ongoing disruption is not in anybody’s interests: it is holding back the great city of Birmingham, a city that I am incredibly fond of, and the people of Birmingham, who deserve better. It is the people of Birmingham who matter: it is their voices that must be heard, and they should be at the centre of the resolution of the dispute.
I have heard the points made by all Members, and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) says. Birmingham is a city that its people are deeply proud of, and they deserve to be. She was right to mention the funding settlement that we have just awarded to Birmingham city.
I want to address directly a point that has just been raised. The reason why Birmingham is seeing a core spending power increase of 45% under this Government is not that it is some kind of reward for what has happened there. That is ridiculous. The reason is that we are reconnecting council funding with deprivation—with poverty. We are reversing what we saw under the Tories, which was town halls dealing with the worst of austerity, and the places that had the least being hit the worst. That is going to change, because we need to sort out poverty in this country. We cannot do that without a town hall that has the resources that it needs to help people. That is why we are changing it. I do not take kindly to the idea that we should not help councils to tackle poverty in this country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Labour Members fully agree with the Minister on that point, certainly. I refer to my registered interest as a member of Unite.
As time is limited, will the Minister address the key question that several Members have put to her? The Government have a specific, special role in this matter. It is not like other disputes between the council and a workforce: because of the role of commissioners appointed by the Government, there is a responsibility that falls on the Government’s shoulders.
There will be a major picket on 30 January that trade unionists will be coming to from across the country, to support their comrades—their brothers and sisters—in the dispute in Birmingham. I will be going as well. There is a limited time in which that picket could be made redundant if the Government convened a meeting of all the parties concerned. It behoves the Government to do so, because it seems as though it is the commissioners who are blocking the settlement. I urge the Minister to convene that meeting and get people round the table, because I think a negotiated deal could be forthcoming as a result.
Alison McGovern
My right hon. Friend spells out the situation: clearly the Government are not the employer but, given that we have commissioners, we will want to hear regularly about what is happening in Birmingham. I will come to that point later.
The Government are not a party to the ongoing dispute. It is an issue for the parties involved to work towards a sustainable solution, notwithstanding the question I have just been asked and my response—given the arrangements with commissioners, I will want to hear from them directly. The Government have that responsibility because of the decision that was taken.
I call on all involved to end the disruption. Last spring, the Government took action to avert a public health crisis, as a number of Members have mentioned, and supported the council in clearing the streets. As a result, the council was able to remove thousands of tonnes of waste from the street and restart regular kerbside collections. As a result, thankfully, we have not seen a return to the crisis that the city faced last spring, and the waste has not piled up to dangerous levels. The council and my Department will continue to monitor the situation closely and ensure that waste does not build up again. It is important to note that although residual waste is now being collected regularly, recycling remains suspended, as Members have said. That situation must change.
Wendy Morton
To be absolutely clear, if the Minister thinks that waste is not piling up, does she think that the situation in Birmingham is acceptable?
Alison McGovern
No, not at all. I have set out my opinion that this needs to be brought to an end. Members have set out the consequences for the residents of Birmingham, for staff and for others, including the right hon. Member’s constituents. Of course the strike needs to be brought to an end; the point I was making is that the Government took steps to bring a public health crisis to a close.
Government commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. In their most recent report, the commissioners highlighted the positive progress that the council has made in key areas—we needed to see progress on other issues as well, not just the dispute—but they noted that the dispute has consumed council time, diverted attention and slowed overall progress. That is a real concern for me. The council still has work to do towards financial sustainability. Given the points made by the commissioners, we all want to see things brought to an end. As I say, I will want to hear regularly from the commissioners about the progress.
In recent weeks, the city has faced additional strike action by agency workers in waste. As I understand it, and as Members have mentioned, a small number of agency workers began a separate strike on 1 December due to alleged bullying and harassment. I am sure that everyone here will agree that bullying and harassment are totally unacceptable, so the council and the agency, who are the employers, must address the issue.
Since the new year, some disruption has been caused by recent snowfall across the midlands, and there have been issues at council depots, but I am told that the council has plans in place to resolve any backlogs created. Disruption at pickets has also been a big factor affecting waste collection, since contingency arrangements were put in place. I understand that Unite the union has acknowledged and apologised for that behaviour, which no one wants to see repeated.
In recent months, Unite has urged the council to come to the table to find a way forward to end the strike. I am obviously extremely sympathetic to that goal, as I have mentioned on a couple of occasions. The council has duties and responsibilities beyond the industrial action. I support the leader of the city council, John Cotton, in his position that any solution to end the strike must be both lawful and financially viable. We all want a resolution to be found.
John McDonnell
It is almost heartbreaking to witness this happening. It is pure sophistry to say that the Government do not have a role or that they have no locus. The Government appointed the commissioners, who report to them. I appeal to the Minister: simply get people in the same room, because a deal is available.
Alison McGovern
All the parties will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, what I have said, and the priority that we put on getting a decent service for the residents of Birmingham and getting staff in a position where they can do their jobs. We all support that, and everyone will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.
Alison McGovern
Very briefly, although I am conscious of your strictures, Ms McVey.
Paul Holmes
Will the Minister answer this question for me? Since she or even her predecessor took office, what specific advice has she sought from officials to see whether she has the cover—as a Minister of the Crown, through legislation—to get those people in a room? Does she or do the Government have that power?
Alison McGovern
I have received advice from the commissioners and others on the situation in Birmingham. I will happily set that out for the shadow Minister. He will know that the commissioners have the responsibility to produce reports and so on. The relationship between commissioners and the Government is well understood, but I will happily write to him with the detail.
Alison McGovern
I will not give way any more, because I feel that would test your patience, Ms McVey. I have set out a range of responses to Members’ points.
Members have also raised the equal pay challenges that Birmingham has faced over the past 15 years, which have cost the council and the residents of Birmingham more than £1 billion. Commissioners are now in place to deal with the situation. In October last year, the council signed an agreement with unions to settle historical pay claims, which was a significant step forward. Members will appreciate that the council cannot reopen this by incurring any new equal pay liabilities or perpetuate any further discrimination.
Birmingham’s overall waste service has not been good enough for a long time, despite the very hard-working staff. Collections have been inconsistent and recycling rates have been low since long before the dispute began. Members have talked through these issues. I understand that the council is trying to move forward and make sure that it delivers for Birmingham, as it must do and as it wants to do. I am sure that we all share that goal, despite the different perspectives that have been aired. As I say, I will meet commissioners and local leaders as necessary to progress towards that goal.
I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part. Birmingham deserves a waste service that works, it deserves a council that can support all its needs, and it deserves an end to the uncertainty that has overshadowed the city for too long. I am pleased that the new funding settlement will invest in Birmingham, because Birmingham people deserve much better. Working together, I am sure that we can see Birmingham move past this, be the proud city it deserves to be, and make sure that the people there come first.
Wendy Morton
I thank all Members, across Westminster Hall, for their contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says, it feels like a topsy-turvy world of politics when we agree on a certain topic, but it shows that occasionally it can be done. That said, the message is very clear: the people of Birmingham and the wider west midlands deserve better. Our collective message to the Government is also very clear: “Get a grip, Minister. Get everyone around the table. Bring an end to this strike, once and for all. For the sake of the city, the wider west midlands, the residents and our constituents, please take responsibility.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the West Midlands.
Other Correction
Wendy Chamberlain
Academic Technology Approval Scheme
The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on the Academic Technology Approval Scheme on 13 January 2026.
Wendy Chamberlain
The University of St Andrews will not make a formal offer without ATAS being completed, and the student cannot apply for their visa without receiving a formal offer from the university.
[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 305WH.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain):
Wendy Chamberlain
The University of St Andrews will not issue a confirmation of acceptance to study without ATAS checks being completed, and the student cannot apply for their visa without this.
Warm Homes Plan and Fuel Poverty Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
Today, the Government are publishing the warm homes plan, alongside the fuel poverty strategy for England.
The warm homes plan—the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history, delivering total public investment of £15 billion—will upgrade Britain’s homes to tackle the cost of living crisis and help lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty. The plan has three key pillars:
Low-income offer
At the Budget, the Chancellor took an average of £150 of costs off energy bills from April 2026, cutting the number of those needing to spend more than 10% of their income on energy bills by over a million. Building on this, the warm homes plan involves £5 billion of public investment to directly deliver home upgrades for low-income families—the biggest public investment in tackling fuel poverty in our history. Low-income households will receive, free of charge, packages of upgrades, depending on which technologies are most suitable for their homes. We are also today publishing an updated fuel poverty strategy for England, which sets out our plan to lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030.
An offer for everyone
The warm homes plan ensures that the benefits of new technologies like heat pumps, solar or batteries are available to families of every income. We are setting aside £2 billion to subsidise zero and low-interest loans for solar panels, batteries and other technologies, with a further £3 billion available for loans and investments in home upgrades over the coming years through our warm homes fund.
The Government are increasing investment in the boiler upgrade scheme every year to 2030 and supporting a wider range of technologies, including heat batteries or air-to-air heat pumps that can also cool homes in the summer. We are working with industry to simplify heat pump installation and to reduce install times. We are also launching a new warm homes agency to support consumers.
New protections for renters
There are 1.6 million children living in private accommodation who suffer from cold, damp or mould. The Government believe that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm and affordable. We are introducing new measures which, by 2030, require private landlords to upgrade their properties to meet minimum standards of energy efficiency in a fair way over several years.
The warm homes plan is a landmark plan to cut energy bills for millions of families, reduce fuel poverty and create good jobs, while doing the right thing for current and future generations.
[HCWS1264]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this order delivers on the Government’s commitment to build a stronger economy in all parts of the country. It gives local authorities in England the tools they need to support local and UK-based businesses and to strengthen local communities through the power of public procurement.
The order enables local government authorities to reserve public procurement competitions for below-threshold contracts to suppliers based within the UK or their local area. Below-threshold contracts are those valued below the financial thresholds set out in Schedule 1 to the Procurement Act 2023 and which are subject to a much more limited set of rules than contracts valued above the thresholds. Those thresholds are set to align with the UK’s international obligations on public procurement.
These may be lower-value contracts, but they matter enormously. Between February and November 2025 alone, they accounted for over £1 billion of spend and represented almost two-thirds of the contracts awarded by subcentral authorities—I think that is Civil Service-speak for local authorities. Currently, local authorities are prevented from considering supply location when carrying out procurements by Section 17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988. That provision was enacted to prevent politically motivated boycotts of foreign countries through procurement—an essential safeguard that this order fully maintains. The order permits this restriction to be set aside only when authorities reserve competitions for below-threshold contracts to either UK-based businesses or to businesses based in a defined local area. Authorities cannot target specific countries, and political boycotts remain unlawful.
Before bringing forward this legislation, we listened carefully to local authorities. The previous Government consulted on a similar proposal in 2023, which received strong support in principle. However, authorities were clear that the proposed approach then—limiting reservations to a single county or a single London borough—was too restrictive. It was unworkable for combined authorities spanning multiple areas, for councils procuring jointly across boundaries and for parish councils.
This Government have taken a different approach. The order provides the greater flexibility that authorities asked for by allowing them to set the local area as their own area or the entire county or borough within which they are located, or to extend it to include any bordering counties or London boroughs. This matches the reality of how local government operates. Economic geographies do not stop at administrative boundaries.
Authorities can also combine this geographic flexibility with existing powers to reserve contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary, community and social enterprises. This means that an authority could reserve a contract to local SMEs or to UK-based social enterprises, maximising flexibility to support their communities in the way that makes the most sense.
Transparency remains paramount. When authorities use these powers and advertise the opportunity, they must clearly state in their procurement advertisement what area the competition is reserved to.
The order also amends the Procurement Regulations 2024 to require that authorities state the relevant area in any below-threshold tender notice that is published. Suppliers will know up front whether they are eligible, and the public can see how their local authority is using its powers.
Statutory guidance has been published to support implementation and was prepared in consultation with the Local Government Association. The broader policy of enabling authorities to reserve competitions for below-threshold contracts had cross-party support during the passage of the Procurement Act. Labour welcomed it in opposition and local government has asked for it consistently. The order empowers local authorities in England to support local economies, strengthen UK businesses, and create opportunities for SMEs and social enterprises, all while maintaining essential safeguards against political boycotts. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly. First, I declare a long-gone interest: I was a county councillor many years ago. I always believed, as did my local authority, that, whatever one did in terms of procurement, the overall aim and need was to obtain best value for money in any contracts of any size, so I have slightly mixed views about this order. On the one hand, as the Minister said, it is very important that we support our native suppliers and contractors as far as is possible when it comes to work, particularly below the threshold. I would like the Minister to clarify that low threshold when she responds.
However, it seems that there are one or two questions here. First, this order would give a local authority the ability to determine a defined local area. Is that within the particular boundaries of the local authority? I see that there is provision here for that to include bordering authorities. Bearing in mind the nature of unitary local government nowadays, that would be an enormously large area. Does this mean either that you can choose to have a very small defined area, such as a particular town or village that contains certain traders who may be able to be part of the procurement, or, more generally, that it would be a wide area? Does the advertisement that will be placed, which is required, have to give reasons why a defined area has been chosen?
My only worry there, in looking back at the history of local government, is that a selection procedure that aims at a defined area within a local authority surely could—I am not saying that it would, but it could—be used politically in certain circumstances: for example, in a political operation where a number of procurements were made available in certain parts of a local authority area that happened to have a particular political complexion. There does not appear to be much of a safeguard against that here, so I would like some reassurance from the Minister on this point.
I mentioned the advertisement. I would like to know a little more from the Minister about the nature of that advertisement, as well as the reasoning that there has to be in it for doing what the local authority has chosen to do. The Minister is right when she talks about boycotts regarding countries; that is a very difficult area indeed. Again, we must be very careful that there is no indication here of a boycott, in the hands of politicians, against a particular country—or, indeed, to come back to the low-threshold procurements, of a boycott against particular individuals, firms or people who are being ruled against, either because they have different political views or because they have some other discriminatory situation with which they might not comply.
I am sorry to raise these few doubts in my mind. Although I see the intention here as very positive, I want to be absolutely sure that, in its delivery, it will not only maintain support for local contractors and local services but continue on the basis with which I started: providing council tax payers with the best value for money.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for this statutory instrument, which I support and which will be hugely helpful for local taxpayers in the generation of local jobs. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate; I look forward to the Minister’s response to all the points made by the noble Lord. I would say just two things. First, we are talking here about procurement contracts below the threshold. Secondly, I believe that best value can include the generation of local jobs as a consequence of that procurement process; there has to be an allowance for that.
I want to ask one specific question of the Minister, which I hope can be replied to now. It touches on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: the definition of local area. I have not understood it; nor have I understood why there is reference in the Explanatory Notes to the consultation that took place in relation to combined authorities. My immediate reaction when I read this statutory instrument was that I did not understand how combined authorities fitted into this structure. It is quite difficult to see how that would work.
In particular, in Article 3(5)(a), the local area is defined very clearly. It is stated that,
“where there is one relevant authority”—
let us say one council—
“which intends to enter into a relevant contract … the area of that authority”
is the whole of the area of that authority. My understanding of this is that a council cannot subdivide its area; it has to be within its whole area. However, it can also be “the area specified” as
“the area of that authority, or … any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border that area”.
I have not understood why the counties and London boroughs are pulled out in this order as being a special case when the metropolitan districts are not in the old metropolitan counties—from my perspective, in the north-east of England, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire. If one council decides to enter a procurement process, is it forbidden to define its local area as a neighbouring authority or part of one?
For the sake of choosing a random example, if Bradford Council decided that it wished to procure as a single authority, would it be able to run the process including a neighbourhood area such as Calderdale, Kirklees or Leeds? I have not understood this; nor have I understood why this issue is not addressed in the context of the Bill on English devolution that is going through, where this issue is not mentioned at all. Procurement does not appear in that Bill. It seems to me that there is a need for clarity on why the combined authorities are excluded and why the London boroughs have become a special case. All metropolitan areas should be a special case.
Beyond that, I am happy for the Minister to write in reply, if this is seen as at all complicated, but we need absolute clarity here now; otherwise, when people start to implement the order, there is going to be confusion about what they are allowed to do. Otherwise, I am in favour of this order.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
We are generally coming to a fairly positive view across the parties on this instrument. It makes a notable change to the long-standing restrictions in Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which were originally designed to prevent local authorities taking account of non-commercial considerations, including location of supplier, when awarding contracts. As the Minister clearly outlined, this order proposes to disapply that restriction in a narrow set of circumstances, allowing local authorities, best-value authorities and parish councils to reserve below-threshold contracts either to suppliers based anywhere in the United Kingdom or within a defined local area.
The intention is clear: to give local authorities greater flexibility regarding their local economies, their local supply chains and, where appropriate, the use of local SMEs and VCSEs. Many of us recognise that that is a positive move for local government on small-scale contracts. However, it would be helpful to get further clarity on some issues. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Shipley, raised the issue of the definition of boundaries. Is it sub-local? Does it include metropolitan boroughs and so on? I would like assurance and clarity on that, as well as on what level of flexibility there is.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate seeking—quite rightly—some clarification.
I will refer first to the below-threshold limits, because I think that that would put this in a context that might be helpful. The below threshold for local authorities is £207,720 for goods and services and £5.193 million for works; that is the threshold that applies here. I should add that central government has had similar powers to these since December 2020, so we are doing something for local government that central government has had for some time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, spoke about best value in procurement. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said: it is my belief that best value should definitely include the social value of local procurement, which is why the Government were keen to take this step as soon as we could. It brings jobs locally and helps local businesses. That can be very much added into the best value equation for local people.
On the definition of local authorities, there is a flexible definition of what a local authority is. To refer to the questions that have been asked, it is for the local authority to determine what that local area will be. The order has been drafted to take account of changes that will be made by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill regarding local government reorganisation and authorities’ geographic areas of responsibility. Strategic authorities are already covered by the order, and combined authorities and county combined authorities are already listed as best value authorities under Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. This order applies to all best value authorities.
Importantly, for strategic authorities, a designation applies to particular combined authorities and combined county authorities; the underlying corporate entities remain the county authority or the county combined authority. When they receive a strategic authority designation, they continue to be best value authorities and, therefore, to be covered by this order—so no amendment to the order will be needed. It is intended that this measure is future-proofed, which will include new local authorities formed as part of the reorganisation process.
On the advertisement issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, I understand his point about this having the potential to be a political matter, but these are economic decisions taken in terms of the contract. It is hard to see a situation where a local authority would take a decision about where it was going to have its boundary in relation to politics, because that will change; you might very well cause yourself a future problem if you were to do that. These decisions should be taken as economic and financial decisions for the council concerned. Of course, the advertisement must state the area to which the contract applies, so it has to go out in public with that.
I hope that I have covered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about definition in my response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Local authorities will be able to determine in a flexible way what their local area is; they can set it as their own area, or the entire county or borough in which they are located, or they can extend it to bordering English counties or other areas local to them as they see fit, or to London boroughs. If you are in the south of my county, you will have London boroughs on your southern border, so you may wish to extend it to them as well.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I would like to be clear about this, because I have not understood what the Minister said. The order does not say that a metropolitan district council, as a single authority, can join another authority to theirs. In other words, if a metropolitan district council, such as Calderdale, as a single authority wishes to procure a contract, can it invite bids from a neighbouring council which is not a London borough or a county? That is what the Minister just said that they can do, and I think it is not specified in the order. I think we need to be very clear about this, because it is not just about strategic authorities; in my case, the strategic authority is 120 miles long, and that is not a local area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Councils can procure either singly in an area that they have determined or jointly with an area that is next to them. I am not sure that I can be any clearer in setting the proposal and I am not sure where the confusion is arising.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The confusion lies in Article 3(5)(a)(ii). The point is that it refers to one relevant authority— not more than one—that seeks to procure a contract. The sub-paragraph says that
“where there is one relevant authority which intends to enter into a relevant contract”,
it can do so only in
“the area of that authority”,
which means its own area, or
“any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border that area”.
There is no mention at that point of a neighbouring metropolitan council.
If it would help the Minister, I would be very happy to have a response in writing, as long as it is posted in the Library. I am in favour of this happening, so do not want to hold things up, but would like to be clear about whether the councils—I live in Tyne and Wear—can work together in procurement. Can one relevant authority procure, but advertise the contract in a neighbouring authority, even if that neighbouring authority is not a part of the procurement process? You can do it in London and when you are next to a county but, at the moment, according to this order, you cannot do it in an urban metropolitan area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take away the issue that the noble Lord has raised, review it and write to him on it, but it looks clear to me that the order says
“where there are two or more relevant authorities which intend to enter into a relevant contract … the areas of those authorities, or … the areas specified in (i) and any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border those areas”.
I think that it is clear, but I will take it back, review it and come back to the noble Lord.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has spoken in the debate.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I want to say a quick word. I think one of the problems, as far as I can see, is the word “counties”. Changes in local government and so on mean that I, for instance, reside in North Yorkshire, which is a county, but next to it is West Yorkshire. That may cause a problem in terms of interpretation. I am sorry; I do not want to complicate the Minister’s position, but it would be very helpful if she could write to us about this point, because defining it as just counties and London boroughs does not help with the other structures in local government.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are discussing a matter of semantics here, but the confusion might have occurred because, under the Local Government Act 1972, “county” includes metropolitan authorities. That might be the issue, but it is only fair that I set that out more clearly in writing to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to frameworks —and, yes, councils can still jointly procure under this process. He spoke about VCSEs. We will, of course, keep all matters under review in that way. I hope that this is a real opportunity for VCSEs; over many years of procuring contracts, I have often heard them say that not enough consideration is given to the possibility of VCSE delivery, so I hope that this will expand the opportunities for VCSEs.
The noble Lord spoke about the restriction that meant that this was not implemented before. Again, we did not go out to consultation because the consultation had already been done. I do not know why the previous Government took the decision to change tack and not implement it, but the response to the consultation was very clear that the previous proposals would be too restrictive, which is why we made these changes and brought them in, in the way that we have.
I just want to say that I said the term “subcentral”, but it is not a term that I would ever use myself. I will make sure that it does not appear in any of my future appearances before the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I want just to clarify the point that I tried to make about consortiums. I want to make sure how the consortium will function where maybe people are looking, shall we say, to give some local focus. If you end up in a consortium, which might be Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Kent, will you be able then to say, “We’ll only accept bids from people from Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Kent” because they are not coterminous, not neighbouring? I am not expecting an answer now, but perhaps the Minister could kindly give it some thought and just say whether, if one enters into a consortium, the footprint can effectively be the consortium?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think the answer is yes but I will come back to the noble Lord in writing. The threshold might step in there because, as I have set out, there are limits on the threshold for this process.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I want just to clarify one small point. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of council areas that border each other but, where there is a river between them, there is a question of whether the border is the middle of the river. I just want to say that because, when I read this, I realised that there are lots of rivers where councils work across the river together and they ought to be in a position where they can procure jointly.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think administrative boundaries take account of rivers generally, so I hope that there being a river in between you would not get in the way of you procuring jointly with your neighbouring area. At some point in the past the Boundary Commission would have taken account of that river and said which area it lies in; as we know, rivers tend to go in and out of different counties.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
As regards changes in local government, the River Tyne, for instance—which I know extremely well, being a Geordie—was always the border between Northumberland and County Durham. Of course, the Tyne and Wear authority encompassed the whole thing. But at the same time, a number of rivers have management operations in which the board is made up of different components of a number of interested local authorities, which are not necessarily local authorities that are, as it were, on one side or the other of that river. I do not know whether that confuses this even further—I suspect that it does.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is enough flexibility in this order for local authorities to determine these matters, to put their heads together and decide how they want to operate in procurement terms. That is what is intended in the order; I hope that is what happens. No doubt it will get tested at some point, but I hope that it works as we intend it to.
As we all know, local government has been asking for a very long time to have this flexibility to issue and award contracts locally. I hope that this order will give local authorities that flexibility. We all want to support local and UK businesses through the procurement that we do for people in our own areas.
I thank colleagues across government who have developed the policy, particularly at the Cabinet Office and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I thank the Local Government Association for its support. I have had support from both the Cabinet Office and MHCLG today. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this order and I commend it to the Committee.
Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December. They will apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to customs officials and immigration officers in Northern Ireland, thus fulfilling a commitment made by the Labour Government in 2009 during the passage of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, or BCIA, of that same year—that was a long time ago, but the Government have fulfilled its application—and replacing stop-gap measures used in the intervening years.
By way of what I hope is helpful background, Section 22 of the BCIA 2009 was intended as a temporary measure to ensure that customs officials transferring to the former UK Border Agency from HM Revenue & Customs had access to the PACE powers they needed to do their jobs. The ultimate intention at that time was to replace this measure in due course with a separate set of regulations that would apply the relevant provisions of PACE to customs officials and immigration officers investigating crime. This was achieved for England and Wales through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to immigration officers and designated customs officials in England and Wales) Order 2013. However, it was not possible to make the same provision for Northern Ireland at the time; although I can potentially guess why that happened, I am not responsible for the decisions taken between 2010 and 2024.
Immigration officers have hitherto relied on statutory powers in the Immigration Acts to discharge their duties, but these do not provide adequate powers, nor do they allow for the level of interoperability and co-operation that is essential in the modern law enforcement environment. That brings me on to the two principal reasons for bringing these regulations forward before the Committee today. The first purpose is to replace the temporary application of PACE powers in respect of customs officials with a permanent legislative solution in Northern Ireland—one that grants those officers greater legitimacy and assurance in the use of their PACE powers.
The second purpose is to bring immigration officers in Northern Ireland—specifically those engaged in criminal investigation work—in line with their law enforcement counterparts in the police and the National Crime Agency. This will remove the reliance on the incomplete powers afforded to them by the various Immigration Acts. It will also reduce the need for multiple briefings for the same operation; minimise the confusion around which officers are empowered to fulfil certain functions; and, I hope, improve the situation all round. It will also support interoperability with An Garda Síochána counterparts working in cross-border operations.
By addressing these dual needs, the regulations we have brought forward will provide the legislative framework that is needed for customs and immigration investigations conducted by both Border Force and Immigration Enforcement in Northern Ireland. The powers conferred on immigration officers and customs officials by virtue of these regulations will be limited to the exercise of their functions in relation to immigration and customs matters where a criminal prosecution is realistically in prospect. Only those officers who have been trained in connection with the exercise of these powers will be permitted to use them.
To summarise, the Government are wholly committed to tackling immigration and border-related crime throughout the United Kingdom. These regulations will aid us in that vital endeavour. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of this draft statutory instrument. I declare an interest as an outgoing member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; our clerk is presiding over our proceedings here today.
I was intrigued when I read the submission from the committee again; my noble friend the Minister referred to that. Why the delay in implementation? We had to wait until some 17 years later. The Conservatives were in government during many of those years, so perhaps this question might be better addressed to the shadow Minister on the Opposition Front Bench, who might be able to offer an explanation for the delay; it seems quite incredible that that is the situation and that we did not have a service in Northern Ireland.
I also point out that these are issues of particular relevance to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, because they are dealing with and have direct responsibility for issues to do with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which deals specifically with issues in the wider purview of the Good Friday agreement in relation to immigration and migrants to ensure that people are properly protected. Maybe some of those issues will impact on other legal judgments that have taken place, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister could outline what discussions may have taken place with those commissions. Could he also outline—because work is required with the Police Service of Northern Ireland—what work will take place with it and what work took place with it during that intervening period? Were reports made from the Home Office directly to the Northern Ireland Policing Board? Could I receive assurances that the PACE SI will adhere to the principles of equality, fairness and human rights? What discussions took place in that intervening period with An Garda Síochána and the Home Office to counter any potential for terrorism or for people to seek to avail of potential opportunities through movement on a north-south basis on the island of Ireland?
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanations. I look forward to the explanation for the lack of representation in those 17 years from the shadow Minister—and I support the PACE SI.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today. The purpose of this instrument is straightforward; it extends to immigration officers and designated customs officials in Northern Ireland the powers contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989—powers that their counterparts in England and Wales have exercised for more than a decade under the equivalent provisions of PACE 1984.
Without this instrument, officers in Northern Ireland would continue to rely on a patchwork of powers under the immigration Acts, which the Government argue do not align with the framework used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The intention here is therefore to ensure consistency, improve co-operation between agencies and provide officers with the tools that they need to tackle organised immigration crime effectively. We support these regulations today.
The equality impact assessment makes it clear that these changes are not expected to lead to a significant increase in arrests or prosecutions. Rather, the effect should be to strengthen cross-authority working between criminal and financial investigations, Border Force and the police, and to support the effective operation of the common travel area. On that basis, and given our long-standing support for ensuring that immigration officials have the powers necessary to implement existing law, we support the instrument and deem it totally necessary.
This is a modest and largely technical instrument, bringing Northern Ireland into alignment with powers established elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We support that objective while recognising the sensitivities that have surrounded the timing of its introduction. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Before my noble friend the Minister makes his response, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if he can provide any explanation of why, during that period, there was no implementation of this SI in Northern Ireland.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot answer those questions. I was not here at the time, so I cannot. Sorry.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I do not wish to delay proceedings. I recall that the noble Lord came into your Lordships’ House at the same time as me around October or November 2019. From my recollection, the Conservatives were in government. So, the noble Lord is bound to have had some recollection and he had Front Bench responsibilities.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I was not the Minister. I cannot answer the question, and it is not my place to answer it now.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can assist my noble friend with some comments. Self-evidently, I was a Minister in the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010, and the power to make these regulations came into play originally when I was in government. But self-evidently, nothing happened between 2010 and the regulations being brought forward now.
I am not party, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is not, to what happened in those years because for nine of them I was in opposition and, for five of them, I was not in Parliament. But I can potentially help my noble friend by saying that it was initially planned to extend the PACE powers to Northern Ireland in 2013, alongside the same processes being undertaken in England and Wales. I am advised that limited resources and/or competing priorities meant that that was not implemented. There was also the additional factor of the closure of the Belfast criminal financial investigations office between 2017 and 2022, which made it difficult to pursue those regulations until now. Questions of why those decisions on resources or legislative capacity were made and why the office was closed are beyond my capacity, but those are the facts of the assessment that has been made. That is what I have been advised.
My noble friend also asked what changes these powers make. The regulations give officers a number of powers that they do not already have. Immigration criminal investigations in Northern Ireland will now benefit from a number of provisions of PACE, notably: Section 19 in relation to powers of seizure in relation to evidence of non-immigration offences; Section 8, relating to warrants; Sections 9 and Schedule 1, which give access to excluded or special procedural material; Section 20, giving extension of seizure powers to include information on computers; Section 46A on power of arrest for failure to answer bail; and Sections 18 and 32 on simplified powers of seizure and search.
Border Force officers with customs powers will no longer have to rely on the temporary measures that were set out in Section 22 of BCIA back in the day. Therefore, officers will benefit from the following provisions not currently applied in 2007: guidance and consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions; telephone review of custody; detention after charge, search and examination; and a number of other points.
These powers have successfully been exercised in England and Wales with no controversy over the past 13 years. When the powers come into force, agreed by Parliament, which I hope will be soon, then in late February or early March, pending parliamentary approval, they will be available to customs officers on the ground. That is important because the powers will be available also to officers from the rest of the United Kingdom undertaking in-country investigations when required. Immigration Enforcement officers currently undertake criminal investigations and have powers of arrest and detention. Border Force designated customs officers do not lead on criminal investigations, which is a point that my noble friend asked about. This is done predominantly by the police or the National Crime Agency. Again, she asked about consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. We have had no response on those issues from the Executive, and I am taking no response in terms of no comment.
I also potentially do not have the detail of the consultation with the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission at this moment but, if my noble friend will allow me, I will look into that and respond to her in due course—if need be. On reflection, I think a full equality impact assessment probably has been completed and that would have included discussions in which the two bodies that my noble friend mentioned would have had an opportunity to input.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response so far and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his response. There is a particular issue here about the interpretation of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which is seen under the greater aegis of the Good Friday agreement as extending not solely to residents of Northern Ireland but to those who come into Northern Ireland as migrants, as part of immigration. It is important, because both organisations have a dedicated mechanism, under Article 2, and responsibility for the implementation of that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and, as I say, will look into specifically whether either of the bodies that she mentioned has made any comments, but I not aware of any. The point on which I give her assurance—that the full equality impact assessment has been completed—is one that I hope will assuage any of her concerns. But I will check that and write to my noble friend if needed.
In conclusion, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we give additional powers to tackle bad actors on immigration and criminal activity. I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and for the testing comments of my noble friend, but I commend this instrument to the Committee.
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Glue Traps) Regulations 2025
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations the Committee is being asked to consider were laid before the House on 1 December 2025. The instrument makes an exclusion to the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—also known as the UKIM Act, for convenience—for legislation prohibiting the sale of glue traps. I will first set out the background of what the UKIM Act does, as well as what a glue trap is, before turning to the reasons why it is necessary to bring forward this statutory instrument.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act aims to create a seamless internal market across the UK by removing trade barriers to ensure that goods and services can move freely. This is facilitated by the UKIM market access principles: the mutual recognition principle and the non-discrimination principle. It is the former that concerns us today. The mutual recognition principle means that goods that meet one UK nation’s rules can be sold in the other nations without having to comply with any additional requirements that would otherwise apply to the sale. Excluding glue traps from the market access principles means that those principles will not apply to any legislation that prohibits the sale of glue traps.
For the sake of clarity, a glue trap is a board, often made of cardboard or plastic, on to which a non-drying glue is applied. It is placed on flat surfaces so that small rodents, such as rats or mice, will walk on to them and become unable to escape as their fur or limbs get stuck to the glue. They may then suffer from torn skin, broken limbs and hair removal, and they die a slow and painful death from suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even self–mutilation. Despite concerns that glue traps are inhumane, until recent changes to legislation in 2022 in England and in 2023 in Wales, glue traps were commonly used across Britain to catch rats and mice in households and commercial premises.
In the UK, we are committed to high standards of animal welfare, but we recognise that devolution means that each Administration may pursue shared goals in different ways. For example, in Wales, the use of glue traps is strictly prohibited. In England, the previous Government regulated glue traps so that they may be legally used only by pest controllers under licence to preserve public health or safety when there is no other satisfactory solution, such as in hospital theatres or inside aircraft. In Northern Ireland, there are no restrictions on using glue traps, and we are not aware of any plans to change that.
In 2024, the Scottish Government legislated to ban the use, possession and sale of glue traps in Scotland via the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act. However, unless glue traps are added to Schedule 1 to the UKIM Act, to exclude them from the application of the UKIM market access principles, the Scottish Government’s ban on the sale of glue traps in Scotland will not be fully enforceable. This is because glue traps produced in or imported into England, Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the mutual recognition principle and could still be sold in Scotland.
Let me turn to why the exclusion has been agreed. The previous Government decided that banning the sale of glue traps would not be substantially more effective than a ban focused on their use and possession. However, this Government have carefully considered the impact of an exclusion for glue traps and concluded that this will have minimal economic impact on trade within the UK, further to the Scottish Government’s ban on the use and possession of glue traps in Scotland. Ministers from the Welsh and Scottish Governments, as well as the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, have consented to the making of these regulations.
This instrument therefore delivers on this Government’s commitment to implement a UKIM exclusion, as announced in December 2024, in response to the Scottish Government’s request for an exclusion relating to glue traps. This underlines our commitment to taking a more collaborative approach to the management of the UK internal market and developing both closer working relationships and increased transparency between the UK Government and the devolved Governments on UK internal market matters that impact significantly on devolved responsibilities. Given all this, I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. First, I commiserate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Katz, because, for the past two months, he has sat diligently on the Government Front Bench and listened to about 30 speeches I have made on amendments to the crime Bill; admittedly, he rejected every single one of them, but he did so graciously. Yesterday, on our 11th day, I said that I had no more speeches to make on the Bill. Noble Lords ought to have seen the sheer delight on his face when he heard that he would not have to reply to me any more—yet here we are again; I commiserate with him for that.
I also congratulate him on moving on to greater and, at least, nicer things. For the past two months, we have debated terrorism, knife and machete killings, child abuse, stop and search, vile online abuse and pornography, and animal sexual abuse—all thoroughly unnatural things—so it is good for him to speak today about nature and removing one other aspect of animal abuse, albeit admittedly a very small one. At the outset, we recognise that this instrument is narrow in scope and technical in nature, but it touches on matters of animal welfare, public health and the operation of the internal market, all of which merit careful consideration.
Glue traps are quite simply cruel devices. As the noble Lord rightly said, they cause prolonged suffering through starvation, dehydration, torn skin, broken limbs and, in some cases, self-mutilation. They are also indiscriminate, frequently trapping non-target species, including birds and domestic pets. Few who have seen the consequences of these traps can reasonably describe them as humane.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Follow that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He is right that there is a searing inevitability, having finally disposed of his many amendments, particularly around cycles, in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill that we should encounter each other the very next day—but it is always a pleasure to debate with him. I am grateful for his gracious comments about the Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill.
Let us turn now to this instrument. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. The UKIM Act is there to protect, rightly, the internal market of the United Kingdom, which is vital to every nation within it and plays an integral role in their economies. Today’s debate demonstrates that we are able to respond to requests, such as that from the Scottish Government, to make exemptions. That shows that the current Act works and that we can be flexible, implementing exclusions on a case-by-case basis as appropriate.
The UK Government are determined to continue to lead the way in protecting animal welfare and we will continue to work with the devolved Governments to achieve this. Where there are grounds for divergence, which in this case is primarily about the best way to achieve similar goals, and where that divergence is expected to have minimal economic impact on trade within the UK, we will work together to ensure flexibility where we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the UK Government actively considering banning the sale of glue traps in England. Once a Scottish ban is in effect, a wider ban on sale may become a feasible option for reducing illegal use, should there still be a need, if Ministers wish to bring in further legislation to do this. However, it is not something we are actively pursuing at this time, for two main reasons.
First, licensed pest controllers are still permitted to use these traps when they are necessary for preserving public health and safety. The noble Lord posed a question about the number of licences that have been given. I do not have that number to hand but, to save him the trouble of tabling a Parliamentary Question, I am very happy to follow up and write to him with that detail. Although these circumstances are very limited, they do exist. It is therefore not as straightforward as simply implementing a blanket ban on sale.
Secondly, since the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 was passed, market-leading suppliers have been removing glue traps from sale and promoting more humane alternatives instead, giving confidence that the number of these devices deployed across England has been significantly reducing. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognises that stopping illegal use does not end simply at the point of passing legislation. The department has reached out to retailers to call attention to the fact that amateur use is now banned and that alternative forms of DIY pest control should be considered instead.
Indeed, to respond to another point the noble Lord made, we are exploring how we can work with online retailers to similarly raise awareness. The Government recognise and appreciate the good work that professionals do to keep the public safe, and we will work closely with them on future changes.
To conclude, I trust that the noble Lord understands and accepts the need for this instrument. It makes an exclusion to the UKIM Act for legislation in respect of glue traps, which means that, where they are produced in or imported into other parts of the UK, they cannot be sold in a country that has banned them, regardless of whether an equivalent ban is in place. Scotland will therefore be able to bring in an effective ban on using and selling them.
I am afraid I have to tell the Committee that I cannot possibly begin to match the poetic oratory with which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concluded. However, as we have been discussing throughout the debate, we are ending on a particular Scottish note. Ahead of Burns Night, I will not talk about the variety of mice that the noble Lord mentioned, but I will talk about another beast—my preferred beast, the haggis. In Burns’s “Address to a Haggis”, he rightly calls it:
“Great chieftain of the pudding race!”
I very much hope the noble Lord will be joining many people, including me, on Burns Night on Sunday in a wee dram and a healthy slice of haggis. With that, I beg to move.
Great Western Railway: Infrastructure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the condition, maintenance, and long-term resilience of rail infrastructure on the Great Western Railway network; and what steps they are taking to ensure its reliability following recent flooding and extreme weather.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Network Rail has robust plans in place to deal with resilience because of climate change. The Wales and western region will see a £2.6 billion spend on asset renewals and £1.6 billion invested to maintain assets from 2024 to 2029. There is also a comprehensive weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan focusing on safe- guarding assets, embedding resilience into daily operations and adapting to climate change impacts along the route.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, recent months have seen the western region suffer delays and cancellations through infrastructure issues. Signalling failure is partly to blame, but inclement weather frequently causes severe flooding. In particular, Chipping Sodbury tunnel, built in 1902, has been plagued by flooding issues since the day it opened. Successive Governments have funded remedial work over the years on a piecemeal basis, but, as the Minister is aware from his former role at Network Rail, this has not provided a solution to the ongoing problem. Can he therefore commit to resolving the issue in order to bring travel in the western region into the 21st century? As the operator, can he take steps to ensure that GWR provides a full set of rolling stock on its intercity services, as opposed to the frequently provided overcrowded half-set of carriages?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord knows more about Chipping Sodbury now because I arranged for the route director for the western route to talk to him. He is right that it was opened in 1902. Great Western Railway built the cutting and the tunnel straight through an aquifer and it has been flooding ever since. The good news is that remedial work over the past five years has significantly reduced the delays created by flooding in that location. However, there are many other examples of flooding due to climate change, including, as he knows, one recently in Neath, which has never flooded before.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. My sub-committee’s recent advice to the Government was that we need to prepare for 2 degrees of warming by 2050. That implies that, in many areas, typical weather will be rather like the extreme weather we see today, and extreme weather will be much more extreme than that, with maximum temperatures potentially towards the mid-40s. Can the Minister assure the House that the HS2 line to Birmingham and the recently announced Northern Rail developments will be ready for this weather?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The truth is that the whole railway network has to be adapted to weather that was once exceptional and is now common- place. The budget for Network Rail, as the current infrastructure owner, was at least quadrupled compared with 2019 to 2024, precisely to cope with that. I am sure that the new lines, such as HS2 and the Liverpool to Manchester line, will be built with that mind, but our greater preoccupation at the moment is our existing railway and its reliability.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, recent reports in the press have highlighted the serious shortages of carriages on Great Western Railway services, with one in three engines not functioning properly due to fuel pump issues. What are the Government doing to ensure a fully operating service now, as well as when the Government start to directly run this part of the railway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is completely right. At one stage, out of the total train fleet for long-distance services, with 400-odd engines in those trains, some 110 of them were not functioning due to a fault that appears to be something to do with fuel supply and fuel pumps. The good news is that the number is now down to 38. I am very frustrated by the time it has taken to fix them, but they are being fixed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches, and then we will come to the Conservative Benches.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will join with me in praising the care of the GWR staff. Nevertheless, both he and I suffer on our journeys, often together, from Swansea, because of the delays. Can my noble friend the Minister say where the GWR stands in the comparative performance rates of all the railways in this matter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It was pretty good. It has got worse because of the engine shortage. Reliability has been very poor. I am expecting it to now recover. I am on its back.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the quality and care that GWR staff take in looking after their customers, of whom I am one.
I take the Minister back to his Written Answer about Chipping Sodbury. He knows that I raised that issue when I was Secretary of State and he was chair of Network Rail, and I was assured that work had been done to solve the problem. It has improved it, as he said. It delayed the flooding impact of Storm Claudia by 27 hours. He says that more work is going to be done in 2026-27. Is that work planned to fix the problem once and for all?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is a bit optimistic. If mother nature continues to pour water into the railway infrastructure, because of the way it is built, any fix will be related to what the climate is actually doing.
Network Rail is very confident that there can be further reductions, some of which will be through big infrastructure, such as building small reservoirs and fitting more pumps. So, I cannot guarantee that the tunnel will never flood, but I can guarantee that every effort is being made to reduce the delays when it does.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the points that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Anderson, are absolutely right. In particular, west of Cardiff, there are severe problems going through to Carmarthenshire. This is probably due to underinvestment over a number of years. Can the Minister give a commitment that he will look at the situation running through to west Wales, in view of the recent experiences?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have spoken to the Welsh regional manager of Network Rail in the past 24 hours to ask him what the incidence of flooding was in south Wales, in preparation for this question. As I said earlier, there are several sites which have never flooded before—Neath and west of Swansea—and Network Rail it is looking very urgently at dealing with those issues in order to keep the reliable railway running.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, Brunel built the South Devon Railway in 1842, alongside the River Exe estuary and down past Dawlish—a very scenic route. By 1860, it was realised that that route was unsustainable, and an alternative route was planned over the Haldon Hill. Over recent years, we have seen the line collapse in Dawlish and, on an almost monthly basis, overtopping along the Powderham banks alongside the Exe estuary. What plans have the Government to reroute that line to one that is sustainable in the long term? I note my interest as a local resident.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Since the collapse of the line into the sea in Dawlish in 2014, about £140 million has been spent on resilience to keep the railway running. There is work left to do, in particular on the cliffs at Teignmouth, but there is no practicable, affordable alternative route that can be provided any time soon. So railway colleagues have to keep going on keeping that line open, whatever the weather.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I warn my noble friend that this morning the Environment and Climate Change Committee took evidence from three water companies. We discovered that storing water in reservoirs is very expensive; it is a lot cheaper to store it in aquifers. So what are the prospects of extending the aquifer that is the cause of the problem to the railway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I could do without anybody storing water in the aquifer next to the Chipping Sodbury tunnel and cutting. If they try it, there will be some serious legal action. The water companies have their part to play in managing surface water, just as landowners do and just as Network Rail does. It is an increasing problem, it needs to be treated seriously and a lot of public money is going into dealing with it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties for the Minister. However, changing the subject slightly, if there is so little money available for rail infrastructure and so many demands on it, why are the Government persisting with this plan that Great British Railways should build its own retail website and app for selling tickets when that is done perfectly well by the private sector already? Is it not time to abandon this vanity project?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Nobody said that there was too little money. A lot of money is being spent on railway infrastructure. The problem has been that the climate has changed faster than adaptation of the railway infrastructure. The noble Lord is quite wrong about ticket retailing. There are currently 14 websites from train operating companies. They are very confusing. Many people do not think that you can buy a ticket for First Great Western from South Western, but you can. The objective of GBR is to replace this system with one that people can trust and will use to increase rail travel.
Age of Criminal Responsibility
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government want to prevent children who have committed crime from re-offending and to help them lead happy, useful and productive lives. Setting the age of criminal responsibility at 10 allows the justice system to intervene early with some children, which can help to prevent future crimes. Children are treated differently in that they are dealt with by youth courts and given different sentences from adult offenders.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend, but wonder whether the child welfare system would not be more appropriate than the justice system for 10 year-olds. How does the Government’s position square with international comparators, UN advice, modern neuroscience and humane values?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, that is quite a lot of questions in one. I can confirm that the UK complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Making international comparisons in this area can be imprecise, and some of our international partners are lowering their age of criminal responsibility. For example, Sweden is proposing to reduce its from 15 in response to an increase in gangs recruiting children to commit serious offences precisely because they know they cannot be prosecuted. We make every effort to keep children out of the criminal justice system unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, have the Government made any assessment of the carefully considered change enacted in Scotland in 2019, when the minimum age was raised to 12 with the intention of protecting younger children from earlier criminalisation and exposure to the criminal justice system? Does the Scottish experience not increase confidence for similar reform in England and Wales?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, there are certain cases where the offending is so serious that a criminal justice response is required. For example, everybody in your Lordships’ House will remember the case of the killing of James Bulger, in which two 10 year-olds were involved. The important thing is that every effort is made to keep children out of the criminal justice system unless it is absolutely necessary to monitor them and to contain them in the public interest.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Government and this House take pride in pursuing evidence-led policy, yet an age of criminal responsibility of 10 flies in the face of all the evidence about brain development, general maturity, responsibility and judgment. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, Scotland has raised the age to 12, and many European countries have an age of 12 or 14. Granted, the UN convention does not insist on a particular age but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urges states to adopt 14 as the minimum age. How can a progressive Government justify criminal responsibility for 10 year-olds?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the efforts made to keep children out of the criminal justice system are all going in the right direction. In 2024, only 13% of all children sentenced were aged 10 to 14 and that is a sustained downward trend.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that children are in the criminal justice system only when it is “absolutely necessary”. But at a meeting in Parliament yesterday about the jury proposals, the heads of the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council and the leaders of most of the circuits were clear that there are young people in the criminal justice system who are being treated too harshly and that this has a devastating effect on their lives. May I challenge the Minister to meet with those representatives, because that does not match the “absolutely necessary” wording she used?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I reiterate that we are moving in the right direction. Not only is the number of children sentenced aged between 10 and 14 going down, but in 2024, of the 1,687 sentences passed on 10 to 14 year-olds, only 23 resulted in custody—again, a consistent trend reduction. I am, of course, always delighted to meet with anybody who wishes to discuss these matters, but the Government are content that this is the correct way of dealing with things.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, indicated that Scotland raised the age to 12 and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the age of criminal responsibility in most of Europe, which is a good deal higher than in England and Wales. Your Lordships might be surprised to know that in Russia it is 16, save for very serious offences, for which it is 14; and in China it is 16, save for very serious offences. Are the Government at least able to commit to look at the evidence and consider whether the time has come to raise the age of criminal responsibility?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Government are always concerned about the position of children and keep all these matters constantly under review.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the Minister referred a few moments ago to Sweden lowering its age below 15. I have done a quick google check, and as far as I can understand, it has lowered it to 14, which is rather different from 10. Can she confirm that that is correct?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. I think it is from 15 to 13.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, as has already been noted, until just a few years ago, the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland was eight. In the last three or four years, it has been raised from eight to 12. Does the Minister agree that before we take any further steps with regard to the age of responsibility in England, it would be appropriate to examine and analyse the impact of the changes on policing, crime prevention and public safety in Scotland which have emerged since the change in the age of criminal responsibility there almost four years ago?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I say to the noble and learned Lord that the Government keep all these matters under review.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is this not a class issue? People who live in leafy suburbs think it is a bad idea; people who live in council houses, often targeted by young people, think that, while every effort should be made to keep children out of the judicial system, there has to be that penalty if they continue with the actions they take.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the four Children’s Commissioners of the four parts of the United Kingdom wrote a report several years ago saying that this country is the most punitive of all European countries towards children?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Noble Lords will probably be interested to know, if they are not already aware, that the Code for Crown Prosecutors has the age and maturity of a defendant as a specific public interest factor tending against prosecution. There are a number of other factors in the Crown Prosecution Service’s legal guidance that point towards keeping children out of the system when that is in their best interests and when it is not necessary for a criminal prosecution to take place.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the range of concerns and questions raised across the House, will the Minister and her department consider putting in the Library or otherwise providing a briefing for Members of this House about the numbers of children involved in the criminal justice system, their race, gender and class—if my noble friend insists on that—and how they affect these matters?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
We can of course provide such statistics as we hold, although I think those on class might be a little more difficult to define than, for example, those on race and gender. It is important to recognise that there are issues relating to children from particular parts of society who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and the Government are extremely keen to continue the work of the previous Government to ensure that they are diverted, so that they can lead productive lives in the future.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, joint enterprise has given rise to a certain notoriety in the criminal justice system. Given the way that gangs of children tend to go around together, is not the age of 10 a real problem? Children of 10 can be convicted of murder simply because one teenager further up the pecking order murders someone.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord refers to the law in relation to joint enterprise. The Law Commission is currently looking at all cases of murder that include joint enterprise and will report in due course. The Government will consider that very seriously because we understand entirely the point the noble Lord is making.
Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hazarika
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the violence against women and girls strategy, published on 18 December 2025.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)
We will deliver the strategy through a truly cross-government approach, recognising that halving VAWG within a decade requires action from every part of society. Implementation will be overseen by cross-government governance, including the VAWG ministerial group, meeting next on 27 January, and an external VAWG stakeholder advisory board. Progress is already under way, with media initiatives launched and further commitments rolling out throughout 2026 under a 10-year adaptive plan supported by regular updates.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I genuinely welcome the strategy, particularly because, for the first time ever, it focuses on engaging boys and young men. They must be part of the solution, and they too can be victims of the very aggressive, violent, hypersexualised online world. The TV presenter, Ore Oduba, recently spoke out with great courage about his own addiction to pornography and the damage it has caused. He will not be alone. Can the Minister tell us how this important training in schools will be designed and resourced to make sure that teachers feel confident and teenage boys do not feel alienated.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to address it. We know that men and boys experience these types of behaviours. We also know that their experiences are unique. Indeed, one in five men experience domestic abuse. That is why we have produced the Men and Boys Explanatory Note, which details how the strategy reflects their unique needs. The strategy also recognises that these behaviours are disproportionately experienced by women and perpetrated by men. As the noble Baroness alluded to, the key to addressing both of these equally important matters is through education. That is why we have announced a £20 million funding package, to ensure that every secondary school has a credible package to offer.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I was very pleased to see reference to honour-based abuse in the violence against women and girls strategy, including a commitment to introduce a definition of it. Has there has been any progress on the Government introducing a definition in the Crime and Policing Bill that we are currently considering? I suggest that that is an excellent way to implement part of the strategy.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important issue. Honour-based abuse is directly addressed in the strategy, as the noble Baroness has observed. It is often hidden in nature. That means we must try harder to address the needs of victims and build trust with them. We have set out clear action within the strategy, which includes continuing to fund the Karma Nirvana national honour-based abuse helpline, and have committed, as the noble Baroness identified, to a statutory definition of honour-based abuse. The strategy, as with all matters contained within it, has a collaborative, adaptive approach, and that is why we will be engaging with stakeholders as we develop that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the violence against women and girls action plan sets out clear steps for schools in updating relationships and sex education, making it mandatory for all pupils and students. Are teachers also having training in recognising children who may be at risk from domestic abuse at home and on how to refer them to experts? I ask because, although money for training on RSE is there, it is not evident in the action plan.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
The key point to note is that the entire strategy is fully funded. At least £1 billion is being spent across government over the spending review, and that includes funding for education. Indeed, there are other government programmes, because it is a cross-government approach, through other departments, such as the Department for Education, to address the very matters that the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the strategy’s introduction of a firewall between the police and immigration enforcement to protect migrant domestic abuse survivors, but the requirement that the police must first seek the consent of the survivor has raised concerns that it will not provide reliable protection for survivors who do not speak English as a first language or who are afraid to object to the police passing on information. What training will police officers receive to ensure that migrant survivors feel confident to exercise this new and welcome right to a firewall?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
As the noble Baroness identifies, training is critical to the whole-society approach that the strategy sets out, and policing is a key part of that. That is why £13.1 million has been provided to set up the national centre for VAWG and public protection, which will improve policing and deal with many matters, including the one that the noble Baroness raises.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
In her Statement in the other place announcing the strategy before Christmas, the Safeguarding Minister highlighted the corrosive influence of online content that acts as a driver of violence against women and girls, stating that access by children to such harmful content should be made as difficult as possible in the UK. She is of course correct. One way of doing this would be to curb children’s access to social media. Does the Minister accept that this provides yet another reason why the Government should take action to ban social media for under-16s?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this prescient and important issue. I am pleased to report that the Government are taking action. That is why a consultation on this issue has been announced. The reason for announcing a consultation is that, on such a vital issue, we must be evidence-led. There is not a consensus on this issue. Powerful and important groups, such as the NSPCC, have voiced opinions in one direction, and we have heard strong advocation for the other side of the argument. Australia is undertaking a living experiment that we can learn from, so we will consult, we will be led by the evidence, and we will report back to this House.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I heard of a case of a four year-old boy in a refuge hitting a three year-old girl because that is what daddy did to mummy at home. Is the Minister aware of how early children need to be supported on this?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
The Government are aware, and that is why we have taken a whole-system approach in the strategy. A cross-government approach means that the housing needs of such children will be addressed through the strategy, as well as social care, education and any relevant criminal justice needs. The central plank of the strategy is that it is cross-governmental, as a well as taking a whole-system approach more generally.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there is an international dimension to this, though the strategy is domestically focused. The crime of honour-based violence, as raised by noble friend Lady Sugg, as well as FGM and forced marriage, carry an international dimension. When may we expect the action plan, the details of which were announced in the strategy, to be formally launched?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that the Government will host a round table on FGM in March. It will be focused on prevention, investigation and prosecution, and is part of the whole-society approach to which I have already alluded.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, the Istanbul convention was signed up to by the British Government when it was promulgated. It took several years, until 2022, for it to be considered ratified and its provisions incorporated into British law. However, Article 59 remains beyond our reach. It seems that a pilot scheme that was set up in 2022, or at least announced then, has yet to report. This concerns the rights of migrant women and the protections that we ought to be affording them. In the words of my predecessor, when may we expect the outcome of the pilot report so that the Istanbul convention can finally and completely be ratified?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
My Lords, the structures that have been put in place around the strategy will ensure that any schemes or questions that remain outstanding will be picked up. A cross-government ministerial group will be meeting quarterly, reporting to the safer streets mission board and directly to the Prime Minister. We will be held to account externally on any matters that Members of this House or anyone in the wider society believe are outstanding. We will report annually on our progress, with measurable metrics by which we can be held to account.
Motorway Speed Cameras
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reported errors of speed cameras on national motorways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
This Government are working to fix an anomaly dating back at least to 2021 affecting how some speed cameras interact with variable speed signs on some motorways and A roads. A small number of motorists have been impacted, and the police are contacting each of those affected. The public must have confidence in technology on our roads, which is why my department has announced an independent review into how the anomaly occurred, its handling and the changes needed to ensure that this cannot happen again.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. National Highways is clearly doing all it can to remedy the injustice done by the erroneous recording of speeding offences. Is the Minister satisfied that all those involved have now been contacted, with fines repaid and points restored? What about those who had to take time off work to attend speed awareness courses and, more importantly, what about those who lost their licences because of the accumulation of points, and thereafter lost their jobs? What compensation will be offered to them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We estimate that approximately 2,650 incorrect activations took place between 2021 and now, and we are checking further back. The number of drivers affected is considerably lower, as not every activation resulted in enforcement. The relevant police forces will contact those affected directly with details on what action is being taken to provide redress. All those notified by the police will receive details on how to contact National Highways if they have evidence of costs associated with this incorrect enforcement—for example, those associated with licence loss.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, will the independent review look at how long the highways agency has known about this defect in its speed cameras? What confidence do the Government have that speed cameras on other roads are not affected?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can confirm that the review will look at the time it took between first knowledge and public action. We remain very confident that this is both a subset of speed cameras and a subset of variable speed signs, and that it applies only to some motorways and, I think, two A roads.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, there is considerable concern at the vast numbers of different speed limits that are now being applied in this country, both fixed and variable. I understand that the rules are being changed regarding the implementation of 20 mph speed limits in rural areas and some urban areas. Can the Minister update us on the present position regarding the 20 mph speed limits?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The 20 mph speed limit is utilised in areas where local highway authorities believe that road safety would be enhanced by its imposition. The Government do not intend to try to write the rules for all those circumstances; it is for local highway authorities to make judgments about speed limits and the road safety that is derived therefrom.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, in his initial reply to my noble friend Lord Young, the Minister mentioned the importance of maintaining public confidence. I declare an interest in having been done for doing 60 mph in a temporary 50 mph motorway limit in broad daylight with fine weather, no roadworks, no obstruction and no accidents. Can the Minister persuade the highway authorities not to abuse these temporary limits?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is subject to the same legislation about driving properly as all the rest of us. The variable speed limit signs are particularly used on busy urban roads to even out the flow of traffic, because stop-start jams, particularly on motorways such as the M25, both create some dangers themselves and, crucially, lower the capacity of the road. My advice to people when the speed limit goes down is to follow it, because that will save them getting into a huge jam.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, what confidence do the Government have in the agency when the software upgrade that led to this issue took place in 2019 yet the Department for Transport was informed only last September, some six years later?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the date was October, not September, but we can confirm that. The purpose of the review, which is a serious activity, is to make sure that this does not happen again. In the process, we will discover how long it took to identify, whether that should have been done faster, how it has been handled and what changes are needed to avoid such a thing happening again. The noble Lord is right: we should have confidence in government agencies, and it is important in these matters that people follow the signage and have confidence in the enforcement that goes with it.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has identified some of the financial costs that might flow from being wrongly picked up for speeding, and it is good to hear that the Government are working on a plan to compensate people. In this context, points do not mean prizes. They mean increased insurance premiums, and it can be extremely difficult for any of us to understand precisely why an insurance premium has increased from one year to another. Will the Government be sympathetic to those who are unable to produce precise figures because their insurers will not give them to them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord is making. The Government have to be a good custodian of public money and therefore should understand whether there is a loss and what it is, but if I were a claimant I would think the evidence of one year’s premium against another, if it related solely to points and not to any other form of driving, was admissible.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Anyone who drives north out of London on the M1, as I do twice a week, knows that there is always a 60 mph variable speed limit throughout Bedfordshire, whatever the traffic conditions and whatever the weather, which are usually identical to the weather and traffic conditions north and south of Bedfordshire. Can the Minister inquire why Luton needs to have the traffic going so slowly past it, and does the department occasionally question highway authorities to see whether some are not tempted to use variable speed limits plainly as a way of raising revenue by way of fines?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I defer absolutely to the noble Lord’s knowledge of the M1 in Bedfordshire and will, of course, ask National Highways officials whether it is the case that it is permanently at 60 mph and, if it is, why. The reasons for variable speed limits and speed limits in general are road safety and traffic management, not revenue raising.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend the Minister that there is nothing wrong with the speed cameras on the M5 motorway in the West Midlands, as those of us who have recently completed a speed awareness course will testify.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If that was a question, all I can say is that the noble Lord has given his own answer.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the highways agency and the police forces have acted responsibly in this case by paying compensation, but in London responsibility for enforcing moving traffic offences is almost entirely devolved to the boroughs. I believe those powers have been enacted and made available in the rest of the country as well. In cases where cameras are used for the enforcement of moving traffic offences—I appreciate that they do not have very many variable speed limits—what audit are the Government undertaking of the systems being used to ensure that they do not have bugs and problems as well?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is important to note that this is an issue because of the interaction of two systems. The technology used for camera enforcement is obviously checked and there is an audit process—I cannot describe it to the noble Lord in detail. The matter we are discussing about enforcement of variable speed limits has come about because of the interaction of two systems, and the noble Lord is describing circumstances about cameras used only either for speed enforcement or, more often, yellow boxes and suchlike.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 27 January to enable Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill to begin before oral questions that day.
Local Elections: Cancellation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have consistently asked the Government to share a definitive timescale for local government reorganisation and the establishment of new strategic mayoral authorities. Given that the imminence of this restructure is the sole reason that the Government have given for yet another delay in local elections, will they please, for the sake of local councils and their residents, share their timetable once and for all? If not, why not? Does it exist? How can they even begin to justify the cancellation of elections if it does not exist?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reorganisation of local government. We have now received proposals on this issue from all areas and from councils across the political spectrum. It is only right that we listen to councils when they express concerns about their capacity. Local leaders know their areas best and are best placed to judge their own capacity.
On the noble Baroness’s question about the timescale, if she is referring to the timescale for the reorganisation, we have been very clear with local authorities about when we wanted their proposals in. The priority areas are moving ahead at pace now, and we are going out to consultation on the other areas in February. We will be come back to them before the Summer Recess to let them know of the Secretary of State’s decisions.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government appear set on disregarding the Electoral Commission’s views, which were that
“we do not think that capacity constraints are a legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections”.
However, as that seems to be the course that we are set on, can the Minister confirm that county councillors in places such as Sussex will have their term of office extended only by one year, and that the Government will not end up extending their term of office by two years until the new councils are due to come in? An extension of two years would mean that councillors elected for four years would end up serving a term of seven years. Can the Minister unequivocally rule out any possibility that councillors will end up serving seven-year terms?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s point about the Electoral Commission, we wrote to the Electoral Commission to notify it, and last week I met the commission to discuss the matter. On elections to county councils, our intention is to hold elections for the shadow authorities in 2027.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question is asked in the light of the result of today’s Horsley by-election for Derbyshire County Council, in which the Green Party took the seat from Reform with 43% of the vote. Reform had 35% of the vote, the Conservatives 14% and Labour 4%. Given that the political landscape is clearly changing, and people’s political views are changing very fast, is it not right that every community in the land should have representatives who reflect their current political views?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If those elections are agreed for cancellation, the councillors who would have been due for election will already have an electoral mandate. The councils have decided whether they wish to go ahead with the elections. This is about the capacity of the councils; it is not a political issue.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, this Government have, rightly, condemned some of the ethical standards of the previous Government. They have prided themselves on setting up an Ethics and Integrity Commission, whose work includes, inter alia, ministerial standards, the Electoral Commission, and, above all, the Nolan principles, one of which is accountability. Which of these codes, commissioners for standards and so on has the ability and the right to enforce the Nolan principle of accountability and ensure that elections take place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness about accountability and the Nolan principles. It is also the duty of councillors to make sure that they can provide the quality of public services that we expect of our councils. If they are struggling with capacity, it is for them to come forward as part of this process and let us know that that is the case.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will perhaps recall 1968 and the GLC coming into consideration. To the best of my knowledge and memory, those procedures were terminated temporarily, and then local elections went ahead. The key point is accountability of those who have been carrying out services for the public over the last couple of years or whatever it is. There should be a judgment on that, which is what these elections are all about.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, it was up to councils to determine how they responded. The vast majority of places that were due to have elections will have them. Where councils have responded that they feel that it will cause them some difficulty as part of the reorganisation process, the Secretary of State will give due consideration to that.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, there has been all-party consensus on the postponement of elections in the past—for example, in World War II, for foot and mouth disease, and for Covid—but there was no such all-party agreement in this case, and no such extenuating circumstances can be justified. But, if there were, would it not be right for Parliament to have a say on whether elections can be postponed?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisations are in progress. It can prevent costly and distracting elections for short-term posts that may soon be abolished. For example, between 2019 and 2022, the previous Government postponed elections in Buckinghamshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Somerset, and Weymouth and Portland. This responsibility has been delegated by Parliament to the Secretary of State.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, on Monday at 5.38 pm, the Minister gave details of letters that had been sent to four councils—Norfolk, Essex, Southampton and Oxford—and said that they were expected to reply by 10 am the next day, indicating their views. The Minister was asked just now about the timetable that is being followed. Given that we are now well beyond the limited timetable that was given to those four councils, why is it not possible for the Government to give a timetable on which they will take a decision for those who are entitled to a vote on 7 May?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Secretary of State wrote to four councils following the responses that came in on 15 January because it was not clear from their responses whether they were requesting a postponement. That is why there was a short-term deadline for them to reply on that specific issue. The Secretary of State is now considering all the views provided before he makes the final decision, and he will make that decision as quickly as possible. He is very aware of the timetable needed for elections.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that there seems to be some form of collective amnesia on the Benches opposite? I well recall, as an employee of the Greater London Council, that the 1985 local elections in Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, the West Midlands, et cetera were all cancelled for the political convenience of the Government at the time, without particular reference to democracy. They just believed that they were in the right in getting rid of those councils, and that was simply it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to say that there is a precedent for cancelling elections. I have been involved with local government for a very long time. At many times in the past, there has been tinkering at the edges of reorganising local government. If we do not reorganise local government, it will not be sustainable for the future. This is the biggest reorganisation of local government for over 50 years. We have asked the councils, if they wish to postpone their elections, to let us know about that. We are now considering their responses.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, later today, the House will debate the children Bill, which proposes an enormous increase in the duties and responsibilities of local authorities. How will postponement of elections help the preparation for those changes, given that they will be working while hoping, but not knowing, that the structures necessary for them to be implemented will exist?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the process of reorganisation and devolution has gone forward, a key aspect that the department has focused on with our colleagues in local government has been a smooth transition of key public services such as children’s services. We are reassuring ourselves as we go through that process that all the areas where reorganisation is taking place have a clear plan for the transition of their service from one organisational structure to another.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7A and 7B in lieu.
“Provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a victim (“V”) requests the Secretary of State to supply V with a transcript of sentencing remarks that are relevant to V.
(2) The Secretary of State must supply the transcript to V, or arrange for the transcript to be supplied to V—
(a) free of charge, and
(b) before the end of the period specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
This is subject to regulations under subsection (3) and Criminal Procedure Rules under subsection (5).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision about how a request under subsection (1) is to be made;
(b) make provision about the information to be provided in making such a request;
(c) provide for exceptions to the requirement in subsection (2) to supply a transcript of sentencing remarks;
(d) provide that, in circumstances specified in the regulations, a transcript must be provided with the omission of information so specified;
(e) make further provision about the supply of a transcript under subsection (2).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular—
(a) confer a function (including the exercise of a discretion) on the Secretary of State or another person or description of person;
(b) make provision which refers to Criminal Procedure Rules (including as amended or replaced from time to time).
(5) Criminal Procedure Rules may make provision about the supply of a transcript under subsection (2) (including any provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (3) or by virtue of subsection (4)(a)).
(6) A power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—
(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes.
(7) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations under this section.
(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) In this section—
“sentencing remarks” means remarks made by a judge of the Crown Court in England and Wales when sentencing an offender for an offence;
“victim” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the circumstances in which, for the purposes of this section, sentencing remarks are relevant to a victim.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Sentencing Bill return to your Lordships’ House for, I hope, the final time. Subject to your Lordships’ agreement, the Bill will have completed all its stages and will shortly become law. That moment will be hugely significant for our prison and probation services. It will put them on a sustainable footing and deliver punishment that works. I am very proud of having played my part in taking the Bill through Parliament. Apart from a brief Bill on the Sentencing Council, this is my first experience of getting a Bill through, and I have been struck by the fantastic teamwork from everyone involved.
I will briefly set out the Government’s rationale for disagreeing with Amendment 7 and tabling our own amendments in lieu. Before I do so, I thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. In keeping with their approach throughout the passage of the Bill, they have engaged constructively and openly. Once again, their interventions have made this a better Bill.
The Government fully supported the intention of Amendment 7: to promote transparency in the courts and improve the experience of victims as they navigate the justice system. We could not accept it as drafted due to the risk that it would significantly increase judicial workload at a time when courts are working intensively to drive down the court backlog. However, I am delighted that we have tabled an amendment in lieu, which expands the provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts, free of charge, to all victims who request them. This new clause represents an important step forward for victims, ensuring that they are able to request and receive relevant sentencing remarks for free.
Sentencing remarks set out the judge’s reasoning, helping victims to understand how the sentence was reached without having to visit the courtroom—an experience that can be retraumatising for many. This change will embolden victims to look back on their bravery, and to process their experience at their own pace. This clause also delivers a major step forward for transparency more broadly, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and free of charge. This is consistent with Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and the 2017 Lammy Review, which sought to shape a more open justice system fit to serve every victim.
The detail on timeframes and processes for providing transcripts will be set out in regulations, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is that the regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. This timeframe will support requests under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which currently allows referrals up to 28 days after sentencing. I also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that we are considering his amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend this deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the honourable Member for Chichester in the other place for raising important questions about the definition of “victim” and why it is necessary to allow for exceptions. We are carefully considering the scope of the definition of victim for these purposes, but I assure noble Lords that this clause does not restrict us to a narrow definition. We will ensure that there is as much consistency as possible in the definition of victim for the purpose of the code, and we will specifically consider the circumstances that the honourable Members for Chichester and Bexhill and Battle raised in the other place yesterday, where a victim is personally unable to request sentencing remarks. We have no intention of restricting access in these circumstances.
Further details will be set out in regulations, including any necessary safeguards or limited exceptions. We will ensure that any exceptions are limited, and our intention is that all victims will be able to request and receive their Crown Court sentencing remarks free of charge. But there may be circumstances where exceptions or omissions are necessary; for example, to protect the identity of another victim. I reassure noble Lords that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations carefully.
I can also confirm that an assessment of the previous pilot for free sentencing remarks for rape and serious sexual offence victims is under way. The results will be published shortly. This explores application volumes, costs of provision and any feedback from the courts on the process. It also includes applicant survey feedback, shared by victims or by those applying on their behalf.
This change represents a profound step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown Court will have the right to access, free of charge, a clear explanation of how the sentence was reached. This is a landmark moment for transparency and open justice and a meaningful improvement for victims across the country. I urge all noble Lords to support the Government’s Motion, and I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks and the explanation he gave for the government amendment in lieu of our own amendment. I also thank him for his sustained engagement with Peers across the House, both in and outside the Chamber.
The Government have now committed to publishing sentencing remarks for all Crown Court trials, and we thank the Minister for this step. It was only in response to our successful Conservative amendment that the Government finally acted. It was regrettable that they opposed our original amendment in both Houses, but we welcome their amendment as a step forward in the right direction.
Sentencing remarks explain the judge’s reasoning in determining the sentence imposed. This is important not only for the victims, whose lives are disrupted in the most profound way by crime, but for the transparency required in the justice system. The provision of sentence remarks upon request will mean that victims who are unable to visit the courtroom, whether for practical reasons or because the experience is simply too traumatising, will be able to understand the reasoning behind sentences handed out to offenders.
This amendment builds on the work of the previous Conservative Government, who successfully piloted free access to sentencing remarks for victims of murder, rape and other sexual offences. This amendment now rightly widens that scope to all victims. It is wrong that a victim of, for example, aggravated burglary should have to pay to read the reasoning behind the sentence of the criminal who robbed their shop. This was a clear gap in the law that will now be filled.
The government amendment contains provisions for the timeline and processes for providing transcripts to be set out in regulations. I thank the Minister for his assurance that regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. Under our current system, victims have just 28 days to submit an application for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This can be a complex legal process to contend with in less than a month. It is our intention, as indicated by the Minister, to double the time that victims have available to 56 days. I am grateful that the Minister shares my commitment to ensuring that victims receive their transcripts before that point. Without timely access to these remarks, victims would risk being shut out of the scheme and denied access to justice.
Finally, I turn to the matter of publication. Open justice is an essential foundation of our democracy and sentencing will no doubt become more complex and discretionary under this Bill. We therefore believe that, in principle, sentencing remarks should be made available to the wider public to maintain transparency and accountability. Although the Government are unable to commit to the public release of sentencing remarks at this point, we note the progress made on this issue and we will raise the matter again during the passage of the Victims and Courts Bill.
This amendment represents a significant step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. It ensures that those affected by crime can access the reasoning behind sentences, and it builds on a clear Conservative record of reform. While there is more to do, we have now made real progress, and we will continue to press for full public access to sentencing remarks in future legislation.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks will no doubt repeat some of the niceties, but I too am glad to see this step forward. I shall ask the Minister some questions on the government amendment.
First, there is the phrase
“sentencing remarks … relevant to”
the victim will be supplied. From what the Minister has said, is that distinguishing one particular victim from another victim in the same case, or what is meant by sentencing remarks relevant to the victim? I have to say that, if I were a victim, I would think that everything that was said in sentencing would be relevant. It also occurs to me that, if the court is required to edit the remarks before supplying them, that is actually more work for the court, which is something that the Government are obviously aware of. I take it that “remarks relevant to the victim” are different from
“circumstances in which, for the purposes of this section, sentencing remarks are relevant to a victim”,
in paragraph (11) of the proposed new clause. Can the Minister clarify what is meant by “circumstances” in this context?
There is also provision for the “omission of information” and making
“further provision about the supply of a transcript”,
which I take it covers not supplying it, though I am obviously not pushing that point. Like the noble and learned Lord, I am concerned to know about publication. A number of us have heard from the Lady Chief Justice of the progress that has been made and the success in using new technology in this context. I also ask what consultation is planned on circumstances, on exceptions and so on—the various points that will be covered by the regulations.
The Minister has said, and we are grateful for this, that answers will be given to questions asked by my honourable friend the Member for Chichester. Briefly, they are whether the term “victim” is to be the same as the definition used in the victims’ code, including where the victim is unable personally to request sentencing remarks; and, where the amendment provides for exceptions, what sort of exceptions—this goes back to my point about consultation—and what sort of information may be omitted. And possibly overarching all this, will the Government be publishing a review of the pilot that was carried out recently? We have heard about it, we gather it has been successful, if limited, so can we hear more about it?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we will also support the Government on their amendments in lieu. I say at the outset how grateful I am, and we on these Benches are generally, to the Minister and the Government for tabling the amendments in lieu, which mean that victims will have full transcripts of sentencing remarks free of charge. These will explain the reasons that offenders have been sentenced as they have and will enable victims to understand those reasons, come to terms with them and consider them.
I am also grateful, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for the Minister’s kind remarks about me and him, and for his engagement with us throughout the course of this Bill and on these amendments in lieu. This Bill, which we agree is a better Bill for its passage through this House, has benefited enormously from the work that he, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, and the whole of the Bill team have put into providing an expert and collaborative approach to the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the amendments are certainly an improvement. Obviously, the Bill does not go as far as many of us would have liked, but it is still a pretty good Bill. In fact, if every Government Minister engaged as well and as comprehensively and listened as carefully as the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, this House would be a much calmer place. Perhaps he could give a few lessons to other people sitting on the Front Bench.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their insightful contributions to today’s debate. I would like to think that my years of doing business deals have helped in trying to get this through. What I have learned doing business deals is that the way to get a good deal is to listen to everybody and, where good ideas come from all places, you take them on board: that is how you get a good deal. I hope the Sentencing Bill is a good Bill, because my colleagues and I have listened and it has been a very constructive process.
On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I think I answered a number of those points in my opening speech, but I will carefully go through Hansard. Where I did not refer directly to their questions, I will write to them with exact details, and I am very happy to meet up to go through those points.
For me, victims come first and it is our intention to provide full sentencing remarks. We want to focus on the victims of the case, not the victims of different crimes. The involvement of family in this will be dealt with through regulations. We have a broad definition of “victim” and the exceptions will be very limited, but I want to make sure we get this right. We need to make sure that victims are not retraumatised by the process and, where some very vulnerable victims in a small number of cases may not be capable of asking for these, we need to make sure that that is dealt with. I am very happy to write and meet up to get this right.
It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who have made a vital contribution. I again thank all noble Lords for their careful and constructive engagement through the Bill’s passage. That expertise has strengthened it in many important respects. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his expert guidance. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support, and the Minister for Sentencing for guiding the Bill so skilfully through the other place.
Finally, I thank all the officials across government for their skill and devotion to delivering the Bill. They are a really great team. I beg to move.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:02 - Division on Amendment 92 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 92 agreed.
20:14 - Division on Amendment 94B (to Amendment 94A) - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 162 - Amendment 94B (to Amendment 94A) disagreed.
20:25 - Division on Amendment 94A - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 94A agreed.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Report: barriers to parental support in the care and wellbeing of critically ill children(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the barriers preventing parents of critically ill children aged between 29 days and 16 years from being by their children’s bedsides during periods of hospital care and the impact and potential harms this has on children’s care, wellbeing and family life.(2) A report laid under subsection (1) must include assessments of—(a) the adequacy of existing measures in facilitating the care, wellbeing and family life of critically ill children aged between 29 days and 16 years by their parents,(b) the barriers facing parents of such children, including—(i) financial pressures,(ii) pressures arising from the parent’s existing or future employment commitments, and(iii) mental health difficulties,(c) options for providing additional support to the parents of such children during periods of hospital care, and(d) the impact such additional support would be likely to have on such children’s care, wellbeing and family life. (3) In preparing the report laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) parents of children who have received care in hospital for an extended period,(b) healthcare professionals, and(c) charities and civil society organisations offering support to parents of children receiving care in hospital.(4) In preparing a report laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the UK’s international obligations, including under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989.(5) A Minister of the Crown must within the period of 28 Commons sitting days beginning with the laying of a report under subsection (1) make arrangements for a debate on the report by the House of Commons.(6) A Minister of the Crown must within the period of 28 Lords sitting days beginning with the laying of a report under subsection (1) make arrangements for a debate on the report by the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the barriers preventing parents of critically ill children aged between 29 days and 16 years from being by their bedside during periods of hospital care, including financial and workplace pressures, and mental health needs, and the impact this has on the child’s care, wellbeing and family life.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 90 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the barriers preventing parents of critically ill children being by their bedside.
I have been working with Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis for around a year. After their son Hugh passed away, they could have stepped back. Instead, they made a conscious decision to stand up and try to change the lives of other families. They are in the south-west Gallery today, as they have been for previous debates. They have turned the most devastating personal loss into a determination to make sure that other parents are not left to face the same failures that they experienced.
When Hugh died in 2021, Ceri and Frances left the hospital at 11.30 pm. When the doors closed behind them, Hugh was still in there, and suddenly they were out of the system. They stood outside with their bags, trying to work out how they could carry on. They had a three year-old child at home whom they had not seen for three weeks. There was no transport, which they did not expect, and they took an hour and a half taxi ride home in silence while the driver chatted about football and the weather, unaware that their world had just collapsed.
When they walked through their front door, everything was still there: toys, unfinished drawings and the remains of Hugh’s birthday cake still in the kitchen. The pain was unbearable. They woke the next morning and sat in silence. Then, Hugh’s younger brother, Raife, woke up, who they had not seen in three weeks, and said, “Where’s Hughie?” There was no guidance and no support, and they had to do what no other parent should ever have to do: look online.
Ceri tried to access mental health support, but no one could help. The GP was unaware of their situation and just offered sleeping pills. Charities said that there was a 12-week wait. Ceri has been very clear with me that he simply would not have survived 12 weeks without immediate support. By chance, he was introduced to a trauma clinic, and it literally saved his life. The GP and the community team never called; the family were literally on their own.
This experience is not rare. Research consistently shows that between 30% and 50% of parents of critically ill children meet the diagnostic threshold for PTSD, with symptoms beginning at, or shortly after, diagnosis, not years later. Studies show that mothers of seriously ill children face around a 50% increased risk of early death, driven by prolonged stress, cardiovascular strain and mental health deterioration. Fathers face significantly elevated risks, including higher rates of depression, substance misuse and suicide, yet are even less likely to be able to access support. Siblings—the forgotten children; the children not in the hospital bed—are often the most overlooked of all. Research indicates that they are up to three times more likely to experience long-term emotional or behavioural difficulties, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms.
Despite these known risks, the NHS does not wrap its arms around these families. Instead, families are signposted to charities—charities that are themselves underfunded, overstretched and increasingly unable to fill the gaps left by statutory services. There is no consistent proactive pathway where a family is treated as a unit when a child receives a serious or terminal diagnosis. This stands in stark contrast to the support available for families with babies with a terminal diagnosis.
The amendment does not seek to assign blame for what has happened in the past. It does not mandate immediate spending or prescribe a single solution. What it asks for is something far more basic and overdue: it asks the Government to undertake a systematic review of how parents, siblings and families are supported when a child is critically ill or dies: from diagnosis, through treatment and, when it happens, into bereavement.
The amendment mentions
“preventing parents … from being by their children’s bedsides”,
but that does not have to be solely a physical presence. All too often, this means parents being mentally and emotionally available and present for their child. It seeks to ask why support is reactive rather than proactive; why mental health screening is not routine and moved into the community, with GPs and community nurses providing a unified effort to support these parents; why siblings remain invisible; and why families so often fall into the gaps between services. This is about understanding what works, where best practice already exists and how we can ensure that families are not abandoned at the point when they need support the most.
Just over two months ago, Ceri walked from the hospital where Hugh passed away to Downing Street, where he placed Hugh’s shoes on the steps of No. 10 —over 105 kilometres in two days. He carried a 20-kilogram rucksack on his back to signify the weight Hugh was when he died. He did this to signify the weight that parents carry when their child is diagnosed with a serious illness: a weight that most of us will never know or, thankfully, experience.
The amendment is about recognising that a child’s well-being cannot be separated from the well-being of their family. It is about making sure that no parent ever again has to walk out of hospital into the darkest moments of their lives and find that the system they relied on has simply disappeared. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly, having signed the amendment so powerfully introduced and presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I did so after having met Ceri and Frances. I saw that the amendment did not have a second name attached to it and thought that there needed to be a demonstration that there is broader support there. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will have been moved by what we have just heard and would absolutely agree that action is urgently needed. We need to assess the situation and come up with a plan to deal with it, so other families are not put in this situation. Happily, this is relatively rare, but some 3,000 families a year are placed in this situation and they must be supported. I hope that we will hear some positive words from the Minister.
Briefly, Amendment 99 has not yet been introduced, but it seeks to address another tragic situation, where, again and again, children are born and taken away, usually from the same mother. I spoke extensively on that in Committee, so I will not repeat it now.
This is an important group of amendments. I hope we can see some positive direction forward and a further demonstration in your Lordships’ House that campaigning, often by people who have suffered so much, can make a difference and improvements in our society.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I urge my noble friend the Minister to look at the amendment and think carefully about what the Government could conceivably do. I honestly think that anyone who has met Ceri, Frances or both of them could do nothing other than to say that we really need this, urgently. I will speak only briefly. When I met Ceri this week, he was delighted to say that Brentford Football Club, as an employer, is already taking this on and doing something about it. Clearly, there are people who feel that this is not just urgent but a matter of decency and humanity. We should find a way of doing something about it.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak to the amendment, but I also met Ceri this week, and it was a privilege to talk to him. I had not heard that part of his story until my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson told us about it.
I recently stepped down as a trustee of the children’s hospice Noah’s Ark, in Barnet. When I think about the support that families get there—not just during the course of their child’s illness and while they pass away but support for siblings, and the ability, through the Butterfly Suite, to be with the child they have recently lost for a number of days thereafter, through to follow-up and bereavement support that hospice staff provide, as well as advice on benefits and access, which might be crucial to the well-being of those parents —I am struck by the stark difference. That support is provided by charitable funds. It should not be that way. This is a postcode lottery. We have responsibilities to this group of families, who fight so bravely by themselves but who need our support and that holistic wraparound care.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 99 and 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These are designed to tackle the sad and difficult problem of successive removals of children and babies from their parents, in particular from their mothers.
When a child is removed permanently under a court order, typically, a number of things can happen, and, indeed, not happen. The court which made the care order and consequent order for placement for adoption will have no further involvement. The local authority which brought the case may well have little or no further engagement with the birth family, who will receive no more attention and support, at least until there is another pregnancy, by which time it can be too late to address the underlying problems.
The mother, probably traumatised, may react to the first removal of a child with a bad decision to have another child, in the hope, rather than the expectation, that things will turn out better next time round, which is unlikely to occur. The mother and the father, if identified, will have become mistrustful of the local authority social workers and feel stigmatised and unwilling to seek or accept help. The mother may become hard to reach and may not reveal the next pregnancy until the last minute. Her underlying problems, by then, will not have been addressed; indeed, they may have become compounded.
Unless there has been some significant and unexpected change, the local authority will have no alternative but to start new care proceedings for the new child, usually with the same bad outcome as before. Speaking as someone who has had to deal with these cases, I know that those representing the mother and the court will struggle to find any real improvement or anything else to distinguish the case from that of the previous child. These are truly the most wretched cases for any court to deal with.
The charitable organisation Pause has considerable expertise in this area and has evolved a model of preventive support to break the cycle of repeated pregnancies and recurrent removals. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and others have had valuable input into this problem and highlighted the statistics. One in five care proceedings are repeat proceedings. The repeat proceedings are more likely to involve babies, and almost half of all newborn babies subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who have had a previous child removed. Indeed, it is quite likely that the mother herself will have been in the care system not so long before. The additional financial cost to local authorities for care proceedings and consequential adoption proceedings, and the support required to pay for foster care and adopters, is enormous. The human cost, obviously, is unresolved misery and grief.
Amendment 99 would require local authorities to provide post-removal support where there is a risk of further removal, based on the Pause model of specialist focused and intensive support. Some local authorities do this work, but it should be universal. It has been suggested that, for every £1 spent, £4.50 would be saved in the next four years. However, some local authorities—understandably, given their constraints—are reluctant to look beyond this year’s budget. The Pause model does make a difference, and primary legislation can now make a real difference. That is the basis for Amendment 99.
Amendment 101 would provide for data collection, which would be a valuable aid to local and central government. Ironically, if Amendment 101 was agreed and Amendment 99 did not succeed, it would simply serve to highlight in the data which would be collected the support that should have been provided through Amendment 99. That opportunity should not be missed.
In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic and suggested that one way forward might be by way of family group conferencing, which is part of the structure of the Bill. Quite frankly, that would not be of particular value in these circumstances. The first set of proceedings probably would not have got to where they were if there had been a supportive family in the background, and it would, by then, be too late to prevent what had already become a further pregnancy. Therefore, I do not think that is the answer.
I have tried to avoid repeating points that were made in Committee. I simply quote the late Nicholas Crichton, a pioneering district judge:
“A family justice system that removes the fourth, fifth or sixth child from families without doing anything about the reasons for removal is a failing system”.
I commend Amendments 99 and 101 to the House.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to lend my support to all three of these amendments. I was very pleased to add my name to Amendments 99 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Listening to the debate today, I think this group is dealing with some of the most heartbreaking events that children and families ever face. It has really been very harrowing just to listen to the circumstances that some of these families have found themselves in. I was profoundly moved by the way the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, introduced her amendment. It is a really important amendment, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically at it.
I will just say a few words in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, particularly about Amendment 99. As we heard from the noble Lord, almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already been through proceedings with another child, so far too many children are entering care from parents who have already had at least one child removed from their care.
As we have heard, without support—and that is what this amendment is all about: the support that we want to see local authorities offering after a child is removed—parents, particularly mothers, are often left struggling to cope with all the existing difficulties that led to the child removal in the first place, while facing the additional trauma, grief and stigma of losing a previous child. This leads to further child removals too many times. It is simply a heartbreaking, vicious cycle.
But with the right support, parents can stabilise, overcome that trauma and make lasting change. The reason I feel so passionately about this is that in my time as chair of Cafcass, I was privileged to visit various Pause projects, to talk to the people who were providing the support and to talk to the mothers about the difference that having that support had made and why they now felt they could turn their lives around so that they would not find themselves in a position like that of a mother I was talking to—I think I said this in Committee, so forgive me if I am repeating myself—who had had eight children removed and now it was about the ninth child. We just cannot allow these situations to perpetuate. It is not something that a decent and humane society can do.
At the moment only about half of local authority areas are providing any support at all. This amendment is so critical to ensure that support is available and that this incalculable human suffering that we have heard about can be alleviated. I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister, and I really hope we can make progress here.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I echo other noble Lords and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for her very powerful and moving speech. Sadly, like other noble Lords, I know families who have been touched in similar ways. Both personally and professionally, I hope that the Government listen to the noble Baroness’s advice.
My Amendments 99 and 101 have support from more than 20 children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner, and I am very grateful to the co-signatories to my amendment. In Committee the response from the Minister focused on early help and family support that the Government will require local areas to deliver as a way of meeting the needs of these women. But as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, although the funding is obviously very warmly welcomed, it does not address the issues for families who have children removed into care, because once a child is removed from a parent’s care, services and support follow the child.
There is no requirement or expectation that the support needs formally identified for the woman during the care proceedings process will be provided after the removal of a child. Without support to change their circumstances, parents are vulnerable to repeat the same traumatic cycle that led to their first, second or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said—eighth child being removed. I think the late Nick Crichton removed a 14th child from the same woman, which led to the work that has been referred to today. We know that almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to families who have been through proceedings at least once.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak but I too was greatly moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have had the experience of trying to care for a child in intensive care while worrying about another child at home. It is not an experience I would wish on anyone. It led me to become a trustee of the Cosmic charity, which tries to help families going through these types of experiences at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, charities do incredible work supporting families in the most difficult circumstances. I urge the Government to think about what work they could do to look at the amendment and to see what more could be done to support parents and children in this situation.
Switching lanes to a Treasury mindset, I also support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendments 99 and 101. I know that the Government are sincere in their efforts to give every child the best possible start in life. I also know that at the Treasury and across Whitehall there is a huge push on government efficiency. This strikes me as an area where our failure to invest properly and consider how we can prevent these tragedies occurring has a huge fiscal cost, as well as the enormous emotional cost that we have heard about today.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, this has been an important debate on two issues that go to the heart of how we need to care for those in the most vulnerable and difficult circumstances, and we share the objective of ensuring that we do better in both situations.
Amendments 99 and 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, concern support for birth parents who have had a child removed from their care and the collection of national data on repeat removals, respectively. This Government recognise that supporting birth parents can have a significant impact on keeping children safely at home and that more can and should be done.
I think it will be a theme of several of the groups this afternoon—in fact, it has been previously—that in some ways it is inevitable that as legislators we turn to legislation to deal with examples of not good enough practice where we want to achieve change. That is understandable, and in many cases, it is the right thing to do. Equally in my experience, strong practice, good evidence and innovation, often based on local needs, are a more effective way to achieve change. We need to be aware that mandating removes flexibility from local authorities to respond to local needs and priorities, increases local authority burdens and risks diverting funding from other preventive services that are not mandated by the legislation.
Also, we do not currently have a robust enough evidence base to mandate specific interventions nationally. This would also restrict innovation and deter locally developed interventions—for example, in Lincolnshire, whose TIME programme works with mothers who have experienced or are at risk of repeat removals of children from their care. Wolverhampton has a dedicated team supporting parents who have had a previous removal, and Warwickshire has its return home programme. We are already supporting the expansion of these services through the families first partnership programme, which is embedding the whole-family focus that noble Lords have rightly called for across children’s social care. That programme is backed by £2.4 billion of ring-fenced funding for prevention in this spending review period. It has, for example, already supported Redbridge to expand its pre-birth and post-birth service to promote earlier intervention with parents at risk of removals.
Through the families first partnership programme and wider reforms, we want to ensure that children’s social care support does not automatically drop away from a parent if they have a child removed from their care. The aim has to be to embed whole-family working throughout the children’s social care system in order to prevent future removals and to support children in returning home from care safely. We have previously committed to updating our Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023: Statutory Guidance to set out explicitly our expectations that birth parents are offered support. The updated FFP programme guide will also explicitly reference how the programme’s funding can be used to provide this support and will give examples of best practice.
On data collection, while equally, I support the sentiment of Amendment 101, once again I do not agree that a mandated collection is the right course of action or that it would have the desired impact. Mandatory collection would significantly increase the burden on local authorities, take resource away from service delivery and necessitate a significant change from existing practice that would require detailed work to assess feasibility and proportionality. Our wider reform programme is improving data collection and local information sharing. This will have a more positive impact on targeting support at a local level than a national collection.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns a report into the barriers faced by the parents of critically ill children. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Katz when a related amendment was tabled on Report on the Employment Rights Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and, importantly, I acknowledge the resilience and courage shown by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis in founding the charity It’s Never You and supporting other parents who find themselves facing similar unimaginably challenging personal circumstances. Parents and children in such a situation deserve and need support, and I know that that is the call noble Lords are making today.
My honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Children and Families, Josh MacAlister, met with Ceri and Frances on 7 January, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson and the honourable Member for North East Hertfordshire, Chris Hinchliff, to discuss the charity’s work and this amendment. Caring for a critically ill child can affect parents’ mental health in different ways, as we have heard. The Government are committed to delivering the 10-year health plan, which sets out ambitious plans to boost mental health support across the country. We will transform the mental health system so that people can access the right support at the right time.
Other changes in the plan which will support parents of critically ill children include actively involving carers—in this case, parents—in the care planning of those they care for, as well as improved identification and support of people in such a situation to better understand their responsibilities and to provide more targeted support. In addition to mental health impacts and support, the amendment raises financial and employment pressures. The Government can provide financial support through the carer’s allowance and universal credit to those providing unpaid care to a severely disabled child, and are spending record amounts, due to be around £4.5 billion this year, on the carer’s allowance.
We recognise the considerable sacrifice that parents in this situation must make, and the impact that that can have on their employment. Parents who are employees are currently entitled to emergency time off for dependants, unpaid parental leave and unpaid carer’s leave, all of which may help them to manage situations of serious childhood illness. We know that many employers will go beyond the statutory minimum to support their staff in such distressing situations, and it was good to hear an example.
As announced by my noble friend Lord Katz at the Report stage of the Employment Rights Act, the Department for Business and Trade is working to launch a consultation on employment rights for parents and caregivers of seriously ill children. This will be the first government consultation specifically on the employment rights of these parents. This will consider whether a new leave entitlement in the workplace should be introduced, such as the proposal for Hugh’s law, campaigned for passionately and tirelessly by the charity It’s Never You.
On 11 December last year, my honourable friend the Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection, Kate Dearden, announced that Hugh’s law will have its own chapter in the consultation. It will make sure that the voices of charities, healthcare professionals and families with a seriously ill child are heard, to ensure that any proposals put forward for consultation will reflect the needs of children and their parents. This recognises that more work needs to be done to understand the employment impact on parents of seriously ill children and the precise support that may be needed.
Lastly, in addition to this consultation, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on the amendment before us calling for a report into barriers facing parents of critically ill children, the Government will take further action and commission a report on the mental health impact on the families of children with a terminal diagnosis. This will include a review of the available evidence and cost effectiveness. Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care will meet with stakeholders, including Ceri and Frances, to discuss the scope of the report. We do not require a legislative duty to conduct this report, which could in fact slow down its progress, so we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. However, I hope that this commitment and other action being taken by the Government underscore the importance we are giving to this issue and to better supporting families in such difficult and tragic circumstances. I hope that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today. I will not seek to sum up because I know we have a heavy schedule of business, but I think I am right in saying that there has been universal support for the amendment, which shows the devastating impact that situations like this can have on families.
I want to place on record the immense bravery and resilience of Ceri and Frances for keeping going. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, for sharing her experience, and I thank the Minister in another place, Josh MacAlister, for the letter that I received when coming into the Chamber confirming that there will be a report on this issue.
I have a few things to mention. I am grateful that the wording and scope of the report, as mentioned by Minister MacAlister in his letter, is up for some discussion. We need to look at the point of diagnosis, as well as, when we are talking about families, making sure that we properly include siblings in that. I welcome the commitment in the letter to keep working with me, Frances and Ceri, alongside other experts. I hope the report he has agreed will be commissioned will be called Hugh’s report, and that we will be one step closer to making Hugh’s law actually happen.
Given the commitments received today from the Dispatch Box and in writing, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Penn
“Guidance on the use of screens and communication with parents and carers in early years settings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, update the early years foundation stage statutory framework for children aged 0 to 5 in early years settings to include guidance on— (a) the appropriate and safe use of screens and digital technology in early years settings, and(b) effective communication with parents and carers about screen use and digital technology.(2) The guidance must draw on advice from education and health professionals, researchers and academics including on the following areas—(a) the benefits, harms or risks of harm associated with the exposure of children of differing ages, including children with special educational needs or disabilities, to screens and other digital devices,(b) the balance between screen-based and non-digital activities for children in early years development and play,(c) age-appropriate limits for screen time for children in early years settings,(d) safeguarding policies for the use of personal devices and other screens in early years settings,(e) the impact of carers’ and parents’ use of personal devices and screens on child wellbeing and development,(f) the importance of screen-free times and environments, such as during meals, bedtimes, and outdoor play, and(g) practical examples and communication strategies for early years practitioners to share with parents and carers to support healthy screen use and promote positive parent–child interaction, including alternatives such as reading together, helping with daily tasks, and engaging with the natural environment.”
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 91, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and Amendment 106, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
I am conscious that I am the warm-up act for the debate on Amendment 94A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash, which is also in this group. However, it is right and appropriate that, before we discuss the issue of teenagers and social media, we think first about the early years. Ofcom data shows that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from 25% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, with one in five of those using it independently of their parents. That data is reported by Ofcom but without any comment or action associated with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response as to whether the high-quality age verification that may accompany Amendment 94A in my noble friend’s name would be welcome in restricting use among our very youngest children also.
It is not just social media. Some 85% of three to five year-olds go online, with one in six owning their own mobile phone, while 98% of two year-olds watch television, videos or other digital content on a screen on a typical day, averaging around two hours each day—double the WHO recommendation—and among the top 20% of two year-olds that figure averaged five hours per day. Such levels of usage go against everything we know about what is needed for good development in the early years, where adult-child interaction is paramount. It goes against everything we know about how much physical and active play our youngest children need, the importance of outdoors activities and the development of healthy eyesight.
The reason this is so important is that we know that the early years are an important time for a child’s development and impact them much later on in life. That is why this Government have rightly placed so much emphasis on their early years strategy. In that context, the Government’s announcement last week that they will produce guidance for parents and carers on the screen time of preschoolers was incredibly welcome, if overdue. However, this will have a positive impact only if the high-quality guidance reaches parents and helps to change their behaviour. Can the Minister provide any more detail on the early years screen time advisory group that the Government are forming to develop this advice? We have the chairs and the terms of reference, but group membership and planned meetings remain to be updated “in due course” on the government website. Given that the guidance is being published in just three months, it would be useful to know more detail on that.
What plans do the Government have to publicise this advice once it is drawn up to reach parents where they get their information and ensure join-up across government, particularly with the Department for Health and Social Care so that it is integrated into the healthy child programme and available through health visitors and GPs, not just through Best Start Family Hubs? Given the importance of joint working in this area, would the Minister be happy to commit to a joint meeting between the two departments and experts to develop this further?
I turn to Amendment 91. The welcome action on guidance for parents makes the lack of any proper guidance and policy within early year settings an even greater outlier. There is policy around the use of technology in schools, but, in nurseries, often the most tech-rich environments as practitioners use tablets to log so much of a day’s activity, there is currently nothing. This is deeply problematic. It is problematic from a child development point of view, as the use of YouTube in early years settings has been described by one expert as “ubiquitous”, not just replacing the all-important adult-child interaction but using content that is too fast paced for children to learn from. This actually stimulates their fight or flight response, capturing their attention but in a way that is associated with hyper-alertness, hyper-wakefulness and later-life affective disorders. It is problematic from a safeguarding point of view, most starkly illustrated by the tragic case of Operation Lanark, where 18 nursery-issued devices were among the almost 70 seized from the home of a nursery worker charged with the most horrendous cases of abuse.
I am incredibly grateful that the Minister and her colleague Liv Bailey, the Early Education Minister, met me to discuss this and the parental guidance issue discussed earlier. I am really pleased that the Government’s intention is to update the voluntary guidance for settings on the help for early years platform, and, as part of their review into the non-statutory curriculum guidance, Development Matters, to not only include information on screen time and digital literacy but to include it in the next update to the statutory early years foundation stage framework. I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat this commitment today and give a clear timeline for when the amendment to the EYFS will be made.
In undertaking this work, will the department consider the impact of screen time and the wider use of technology and devices in early years settings, by children and practitioners, as well as child development and safe- guarding issues? Screen time is important but, based on research published about current levels of screen time use, “less is better” is an important message. The evidence shows that context and content matter too, and I hope the Government can commit to incorporating this in their approach.
I should be absolutely clear that those settings which choose not to use screens or tech should be free to do so. Tech is not needed for good child development in the early years. If it is being used, it should be informed by our understanding of early years development and accompanied by robust safeguarding practices and clear policy within the setting.
It is essential we get this right. I know a host of education, health and research professionals stand ready to support the Government in their work. I thank Katy Potts at the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group, Professors Rachael Bedford, Tim Smith and Sam Wass, Birth to 5 Matters and Health Professionals for Safer Screens. These are among the many dedicated people who have been generous to me with their time and worked so hard in this area.
Finally, I should probably explain why it is so important to get clear reassurances from the Minister on this now. I first tabled amendments on this in May last year, but there was no mention of digital technology or screen time in the Government’s early years strategy published in July. Guidance for parents of preschoolers was announced only in January, with no accompanying detail of a campaign to reach parents. On the incorporation of guidance into the early years statutory framework, the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the previous Early Education Minister over a year ago calling for this to be incorporated into the update to the EYFS that went live last September. That call was rejected, although I have never been able to find out why.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to action now and believe it is genuine, but I need reassurance that, once the spotlight has moved on, work will not stop and delivery will happen at pace, in particular on making a substantive change to the early years foundation stage statutory framework this year; otherwise, a two year-old who started nursery when we first debated this issue will have left for school before any change is made. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name, which are both amendments to Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. These are necessary if this House is to respond to the online harms that children face in a way that is effective, proportionate and grounded in evidence.
To be clear from the outset, I share the concerns across this House about the real harms that children face online. These range from exposure to age-inappropriate and damaging content to the disturbing prevalence of grooming and exploitation. Parents are right to be worried and Parliament is right to intervene. However, as the NSPCC made clear in its briefing to us, a complex safeguarding problem demands a risk-based response, not a blunt one-age ban.
My Amendment 94B would introduce a mechanism for limited and tightly controlled exemptions to a blanket minimum age requirement. Crucially, such exemptions could exist only where they demonstrably improved child safety, not where they weakened it. Any exemption would be jointly specified by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner. That joint responsibility is deliberate and important. It would ensure that decisions were made independently of commercial interests and rooted firmly in regulatory expertise and the statutory duty to act in the best interests of children.
The amendment sets out a high evidential bar for platforms. Providers would have to show compliance with Ofcom’s risk-based guidance on minimum age, have full regard for UK GDPR principles and give explicit consideration to children’s rights as recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. They would also be required to assess impacts on children’s mental health, examine whether their platform’s design or features encouraged addictive or compulsive use, and scrutinise the role of algorithms in content recommendations and targeted advertising for any products or services, including, for example, gambling content marketing. Importantly, any exemptions would be subject to periodic reviews, with powers for amendment or revocation if Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner were no longer satisfied that adequate protections were in place. This would place a burden squarely on the platforms to prove safety on an ongoing basis, rather than leaving children exposed to unmanaged risk.
The NSPCC, the 5Rights Foundation, the Molly Rose Foundation and 39 children’s rights and online safety organisations have warned us this week that
“blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need”.
We already know that age limits are not meaningfully enforced, and these organisations are well respected up and down this country. The NSPCC estimates that, in the UK, more than 2.5 million children under the age of 13 are currently accessing social media. Raising the minimum age to 16 does not solve that problem. Indeed, it risks pushing children into less regulated and higher-risk spaces, including encrypted platforms, anonymous forums and unsafe gaming environments. Children who bypass age checks are likely to register as adults, placing them in an environment with weaker safeguards and a higher exposure to harm. There is also a real risk of unintended consequences. Safe, age-appropriate use of social media such as family group chats, peer support networks and access to services like Childline could be lost, particularly for vulnerable children. Bans may also deter children from reporting harm for fear of being punished for being online at all.
Briefly, Amendment 94C would ensure that the definition of “regulated user-to-user services” was aligned with the Online Safety Act 2023. This House invested significant effort in establishing a risk-based regulatory framework under the Act, and it is essential that this Bill operates coherently within it.
These amendments would not dilute child protection but strengthen it. They would move us away from a blunt, one-size-fits-all ban towards a proportionate, evidence-based approach that respected children’s rights, held platforms accountable and generally reduced harm. The public out there have sent a clear message that they want us to act. It is now up to us in your Lordships’ House and down the Corridor in the other place to act on this. We need to heed the warnings of these respected organisations that have written to us all and to say, “We hear you that there is a need for a ban, but we think we can look at a much more sophisticated model than just a simple, one age limit ban”.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93 and 94A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass, Lady Benjamin and Lady Berger. As this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I should draw attention to my registered interests, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi- academy trust and an investor in a number of companies, including tech and software companies.
I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 94A would raise the age limit for access to social media to 16. In fact, this amendment would do rather more than that; it would do five things. First, it would raise the age limit. Secondly, it would require social media companies to put in place highly effective age assurance—currently, many, if not most, social media companies have no really effective age assurance at 13. Thirdly, the amendment would direct the Chief Medical Officer to prepare and publish advice to parents and carers on the use of social media by children—so, if you like, the start of a public awareness campaign. Fourthly, the amendment would send a message that draws a line in the sand for parents, carers and others to use when discussing social media with children, which they are crying out for. Fifthly, it would allow 12 months for implementation.
We have reached an inflection point. We face nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media. Many teenagers are spending long hours—five, six, seven or more a day—on social media. The evidence of the damage this is causing is now overwhelming. We have long passed the point of correlation or causation. There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that, by every metric—health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime and economic productivity—children are being harmed. I have sent noble Lords an evidence document prepared by health professionals which sets out over 50 studies from around the world showing a clear link between excessive use of social media and harm to our children. Jonathan Haidt now calls this a “mountain of evidence”.
We are facing a health emergency confronting our children. Since 2016, there has been a 477% increase in children’s contact with mental health services, and eating disorders among 17 to 19 year-olds have risen sixteenfold. There has been a sevenfold rise in young girls admitted to hospital with eating disorders, and the evidence is clear that there is a strong link between this and the substantial increase in rates of ADHD, suicide, depression, anxiety and self-harm among teenagers with overexposure to social media.
Our teachers say that it is the number one cause of disruptive behaviour, and, in their view, it will be the biggest source of pressure for students in the future. Our children are turning up at school sleep deprived. It is clear that many are going to sleep in the small hours on many nights of the week. The NEU and NASUWT are in favour of raising the age limit to 16, as is the chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver.
Social media is at the centre of county lines and radicalisation, so much so that, in 2025, the heads of MI5, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency issued a summer holiday warning urging parents to keep their children safe online. More young people than ever have been arrested in recent years for terrorism offences. Children are increasingly seeing real-life violent content, which only 6% of them initially look for. The evidence is clear that people who watch or discuss violent images are, unsurprisingly, much more likely to commit crime, including knife crime.
I know that some are concerned that a 16 age limit would be to the detriment of particular groups of often vulnerable children, but it is the most vulnerable children who are the most susceptible to influence by social media. The police who specialise in child sexual abuse material and radicalisation say that it is precisely the help forums for groups such as LGBTQ+, those with eating disorders, those with ADHD, et cetera, where the worst abusers hang out and target children.
Social media is being used extensively for sextortion. There are even widespread cases of children hosting live sex shows for payment from their bedrooms on social media. So-called com groups are using social media to trap vulnerable children in games such as cutting games, where the person who cuts the deepest wins; choking games, which have proved fatal; or even games which encourage rape or suicide. One survivor attested to having seen multiple suicides.
Polling demonstrates overwhelming support. The vast majority of parents—75% of adults, including 75% of Labour voters—support raising the minimum age to 16. Most strikingly, young people themselves recognise the harm: 78% of Gen Z say they would try to delay their child using social media for as long as possible. Polling published today shows that 60% of 16 to 24 year-olds—those who have most recently had the experience of social media as teenagers—support a 16 age limit. Over half of 13 to 24 year-olds say that social media is fairly or completely responsible for increasing misogyny or violence against women and girls.
There is global momentum for this. Australia has raised the age limit to 16 and Malaysia is doing so. Many other countries, including Denmark, France, Norway and New Zealand, are considering restrictions. In November, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly for 16. Why 16? Because the teenage years between 13 and 15 are when teenagers are the most vulnerable to influence and have a very high risk profile. Some people call this a cliff edge. I do not see that. The amendment seeks merely to give teenagers a few more years to mature so that they can deal more effectively with social media, distinguish fact from fiction and exercise better judgment.
I know that some charities, including those involving bereaved parents, would like to see an approach which favours using the Online Safety Act and Ofcom more effectively. While we must try to improve Ofcom’s approach, the OSA catches harmful content only once it has been seen, often by children. With 70 million child sexual abuse images out there—and more being created every minute—beheading videos, et cetera, there is no way, even with the best will in the world, that all this content can be taken down and taken down fast enough. Our children will see it. We just want them to see it at a later age.
Nine bereaved families, many of whom are here today, wrote to the Prime Minister on Monday in support of my amendment. Of course, this approach would not deal with the grooming of children on social media channels. Others have proposed that we wait to see what happens in Australia, but what are we waiting for? We know our children are being harmed. We know that tech companies can put in place highly effective age assurance. That is what they are doing in Australia, with a high degree of accuracy—well above 90% at the initial age gate. By tracking the traffic and activity on social media, which they do for all of us, they can tell when a child has slipped through the net. There is a myth that children will get round age assurance, but that has grown up because hitherto there has been no generally effective age assurance at 13. There is concern that children will move to other sites. My Amendment 94A allows for these to be brought into scope. It also allows 12 months for implementation —plenty of time to learn from Australia.
This is going to happen. The only question is when. We have the opportunity to do it now, in this Bill. With every day that passes, more damage is being done to children. We must act now.
I turn to the Liberal Democrat amendments: Amendments 108, 94B and 94C. Well intentioned though they may be, they have been rushed out at the last minute. Surprisingly, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, has just said, they bring into scope Wikipedia, WhatsApp, Tripadvisor, all gaming apps, and many special interest and health forums, with no ability to exclude them; whereas my Amendment 94A has that facility, which would almost certainly be used. Amendment 108 has no enforcement mechanism if social media companies do not comply with the 16 year- old age limit.
Amendments 108, 94B and 94C seek to avoid scrutiny by your Lordships’ House and the other place on which apps are in or out and seek to delegate this function to Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner, apparently sometimes acting jointly—I do not quite know how that would work—and acting on the basis of vague criteria, creating a huge amount of work for an already overworked body and massive scope for litigation. My Amendment 94A leaves that scrutiny firmly with Parliament. As well intentioned as these amendments might be, they are fundamentally flawed and, therefore, if they are sent back to the other place, as opposed to my Amendment 94A, it will be easy for the Government to knock them out on those grounds. My Amendment 94A has been well thought through and subject to scrutiny in Committee.
I turn to the Government’s proposal for a consultation, which they tell me will last for three months or so. First, the announcement of it on the eve of the vote is unfortunate. When will the actions arising from this consultation be published? We are still waiting for those in relation to the consultation on gender identity in schools nearly two years after the consultation closed —and that issue, complicated though it is, does not involve technology or multibillion-pound tech companies with all the lobbying at their disposal. The consultation talks about exploring ways to improve assessing age assurance. As I have already said, highly effective age assurance already exists. The Government are well behind the A ball. They want to assess the current age of digital consent. This is in fact only one means, and not the most usual means, by which social media companies lawfully collect personal data. Again, the Government are behind the A ball. They want to explore further intervention to support parents. Parents are arguing with their children daily about screen and social media time. They want a line in the sand now. The Government’s consultation is, in my view, unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last-minute attempt to kick the can down the road.
My Amendment 92 seeks to raise the age of access to VPNs to 18, as it is clear that some children are using VPNs to get round age restrictions for gambling and pornography and might well use them for social media, so it is closely linked to Amendment 94A. On Amendment 93, I have had a constructive discussion with Ministers on this issue and more discussions are in progress, so I will not push that to a vote today. I urge noble Lords to vote for my Amendment 94A on social media and Amendment 92 on VPNs.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. When I was president of the paediatric college, an important part of my job was urging Government Ministers that protecting and investing in children is the only way to protect the future of our country because, as I believe I have said before in this House, children are 25% of our population and 100% of our future. If we fail to protect them, it is not just a moral issue but a financial disaster.
There are two questions we need to ask ourselves when we think about how social media is impacting our youth. First, are they at risk? Secondly, how do we eliminate, or at least minimise, that risk? With regard to younger children, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I too welcome the planned guidance. I ask the Government to give careful thought to that guidance particularly in relation to vulnerable and disabled children. They may be more limited in their abilities for alternative physical activities so screen time is, understandably, an easier default, and advice for those families is particularly important. It is also important to think about how to reach those harder to reach families or marginalised families who may not easily access the guidance. A final thing I would say, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about who will be in the group, is that the input of speech and language therapists will be particularly important, given their obvious involvement in early language development.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I have followed these issues closely through my work on the Online Safety Act, first as a member of the Joint Committee, then on the Opposition Front Bench and now on your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. I added my name to Amendment 91 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I am delighted that that Government are listening and hope that Ministers can give the noble Baroness the reassurances that she seeks.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I first thank him for raising these important issues and detailing the harms so compellingly. The harms caused by social media are clear, both in terms of the harmful content and that they are addictive by design. The algorithms operate in a moral vacuum; platforms’ algorithms do whatever it takes to keep us on screen. I am attracted to the Government’s proposal in the consultation around banning addictive design rather than a blanket age ban. That could see a huge reduction in harm for all of us, as today’s University of Sussex research about doomscrolling demonstrates.
However, it is our children whom we most want to protect. My 14 year-old at home is time-limited on her phone; she is not allowed her phone in her room overnight and is limited to two social media accounts. This is difficult to parent, but it is our responsibility as parents to navigate it with our children. Incidentally, the two social media accounts she chooses are WhatsApp and Pinterest. Both are allowed under the Australian social media ban. One keeps her connected to family and friends, and the other she needs for her GCSE art. Under Amendment 94A, on my reading of it, it seems pretty categorical that it would include all social media platforms and she would be banned from both.
Lord Nash (Con)
I am interested to hear from a Labour politician, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that there are parents who can control their kids, but it is the most vulnerable kids and the least advantaged kids who live in households in which there is no discipline who are the most exposed.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
The noble Lord and I debate with great respect and friendship. My reading of
“regulations made by statutory instruments require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly effective age-assurance measure to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users”
is that this is categorical.
Lord Nash (Con)
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, is that it would be up to the Government, approved by this House and the other place, which apps are in and out. Clearly, it would be possible for those apps suitable for children to be excluded, as would WhatsApp and Wikipedia. The Lib Dems have drafted their amendment in such a way that it would include everybody, and it would be up to this very complicated procedure with Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to work this out—which, frankly, would be a nightmare.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I will move on. I will try harder to read further to get to the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Nash—but I doubt it.
Pinterest was implicated in the suicide completed by Molly Russell. Molly’s father, Ian, is thoughtful, brave and inspiring. I listened to him talk on the BBC this week about why he and countless other expert children’s charities are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. They worry about the unintended consequences for children’s safety. A blanket ban is likely to lead to under-16s finding less regulated platforms to connect to online, such as gaming platforms or the dark web. It is worth noting that according to recent Internet Matters research, boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than on social media platforms.
Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act. The VPN amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tries to address this, but age-gating VPNs may be extremely problematic. My phone uses a VPN, following a personal device cyber consultation offered by this Parliament. VPNs can make us more secure, and we should not rush to deprive children of that safety. A blunt, blanket ban—it is a struggle not to call it a Blunkett ban—would also deny young people the positives of some of the less addictive social media.
Young people will continue to want to connect with each other. They will want to share music, their photos and videos, and their creative content. I was of the mixtape generation, now replaced by the shareable playlist. Young entrepreneurs will want to market their products: will they have to use an adults account on an adult’s phone, and be exposed to the risks of adult content as a result?
When I speak to young people in my capacity as president of Young Citizens, I am struck by how well informed they are. They find out what is going on in the world through social media. Is it right that we lower the voting age to 16 and simultaneously prevent access to news for 15 year-olds when we want them to become well informed?
The arguments for doing something urgent and meaningful about the dangers to children of social media are compelling, but so are the arguments for doing it in a more sophisticated way. For that reason, we should back the Government’s consultation. I note that this is a three-month consultation. Can the Minister please reassure us that action will follow within the 12-month timeline suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash?
We should at the same time urgently review how the Online Safety Act is working. We need to retain the risk-based approach to regulation in the Act. But Ofcom’s current stance of treating all children, all the way to 18, as the same is flawed. We need age-appropriate design, and we should give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to ensure that age restrictions and guidance about social media access are rigorously enforced. This in turn requires mandated, robust age assurance. We must develop this, sensitive to the digital rights of children and mindful that we do not want unwittingly to require big tech to hold sensitive data about our children. I also echo Ian Russell’s call for us to listen to children and young people as we make these changes. That is one of the really good reasons why we should go ahead with a consultation.
I conclude by urging Ministers to act swiftly and to listen to parliamentarians, but also to experts and young people, and then to act robustly, platform by platform, to deliver the ambition of the Online Safety Act to make this country the safest place in the world for children to grow up.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. Like him, I have been involved in debating online safety issues—from the internet safety Green Paper through to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, and then seeing the Online Safety Bill become an Act. I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation.
I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley’s Amendments 94B and 94C, which are amendments to Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In doing so, I urge the House to strengthen his proposal by transforming it from a blanket ban into an effective, harms-based approach to social media regulation that can actually be implemented and enforced within the same timetable.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, perhaps I am a simple-minded and naive bishop, but it seems we are getting into a debate we probably should have had in Committee on the different ways of approaching a quite specific issue, and I would rather we did not spend all night doing that. Yet we are where we are.
The very fact that we are mostly discussing Amendments 94A and 94B is a symptom of the fact that these issues have really come to the fore of the public’s concern in relatively recent times. I have got to the point where I am thinking, “I don’t care which amendment we pass tonight, as long as we pass something that then allows some time for things to go back to the Commons, for them to give consideration and for it to come back here”. Let us have that process. Even though we are at a relatively late stage of a Bill, we can have a good process beyond today, rather than trying to resolve the matter once and for all on the Floor of the House this evening. That is my main point.
My second point is on why we are perhaps in a better place now than we were a few months ago. It has worried me that we have not taken action against the big tech companies in the USA in recent times. We know that the US Government put this Government—us, our nation—under extreme pressure. Nobody has mentioned that today. It feels as if it is the elephant in the room. Perhaps we need to now show our courage and, particularly given all that is happening in and around Greenland, perhaps now is the time to say that we are not pusillanimous any more and that we are standing up for Britain and for what Britain needs, whatever the tech bros think is in their interests.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, because I am going to mirror his words in many ways. Before I start, I thank our warm-up act, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. It is a fantastic result. I hope that the Minister gives her all that she wants. She should be proud of herself that she has done it in just a couple of years, because the child born when I first raised it is probably in tertiary education by now, so two years is a very good timeframe.
I had written quite a different speech before I saw the Government’s consultation announcement. That made me rather angry, because it does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.
We have two amendments before us. Neither enjoys the support of all those who care about child safety. As the right reverend Prelate said, what a gift that has been to the Government, because it allows them to kick the issue down the road. The United Kingdom—once at the forefront of tech safety, commended on its AI Safety Institute, the age-appropriate design code, the Online Safety Act and the provisions for bereaved parents, all first and best in class—has squandered its advantage. Instead, we are becoming a case study for those who would like to prove that the tech sector is beyond national laws and is a law unto itself. Regulation has failed not because it cannot work but because the regime envisaged by Parliament was weakened by lobbying and critically undermined in its implementation. It is not regulation failing in principle; it is political will failing in practice.
There are very good reasons why all the child safety experts and organisations have urged the Government not to settle for a social media ban. Their collective view is clear that a ban is blunt and partial, fails to tackle root harms, shifts the burden from tech to parents and children and abandons 16 and 17 year-olds. Possibly the biggest thing they are saying we must hear is that it sends a dangerous message to a demographic that already experiences widespread disaffection that while the future is all digital and AI, they are not invited. I agree with every single one of those points.
However, over the last 15 months, the Government have ignored the howl of pain from parents and children, preferring to sup with big tech. Many have come to the view that if they cannot have the digital world that they were promised for their children after a decade of work on the Online Safety Act, they would rather have nothing at all. I say this reluctantly, but all the social media companies caught by Australia’s ban are already in scope of the OSA, so today marks a very low day for Ofcom. We are rehearsing in these two groups exactly what Ofcom was supposed to solve.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is such a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. She is absolutely right. We have a choice today on whether we will send an amendment to the Commons to put pressure on the Government to act or whether we are going to flunk this opportunity. I support her conclusion that this is a moment when the House of Lords does need to act.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Penn for her Amendment 91, which is thoughtful, patiently put and important. I hope very much indeed that the Government pay attention to her notes on timetable and that, if necessary, she presses this point so that she gets what she needs.
I want to address Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash, and pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass, Lady Berger and Lady Benjamin, all of whom have made an enormous impact on this. Guardrails for our children are where we have landed. I say this with some regret, but it is important that we recognise this point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned a meeting with the royal colleges. As a former Health Minister who has had many dealings with the herd of cats that are the royal colleges, I say that if they unify and say that there is a public health emergency, we should pay attention to that moment. We should not be brushed off by attempts to knock this into the long grass via public consultations. We should listen to our clinicians. Dr Rebecca Foljambe and the clinicians against smart- phones have done conclusive research on the harms done by screen time, by predators, by fraudsters, by the filth on the internet and by the sheer quantity of screen time that our children are subjected to. It is an utterly persuasive argument. Further research is not needed.
In fact, a consultation is the tobacco industry playbook, applied to smartphones for adolescents. Delay, consult, lobby, weaken—we know this playbook very well. We do not need a “get out of jail” clause for the tech companies; we need implementation. This is our opportunity for doing it.
Like many others in this Chamber, I worked really hard on the Online Safety Act to make it a success. It is a landmark piece of legislation. I am extremely proud of bits of it. But it assumed that we could work with the platforms to moderate their algorithms, to remove the filth, to prevent the predators, and to limit the screen time. It assumed that we were working in some kind of collaborative partnership with Facebook, Google, TikTok, Meta, Snapchat, Twitter and all the other social media companies to protect children and work towards some kind of better world.
That was a catastrophic misjudgment about the nature of these companies and of their leadership. The outcomes for our children, which have gone significantly backwards in the last two years, are testimony to that point. That damage done to our children is accelerating, with the tsunami of AI that is heading their way. The platforms have not reformed. They have not taken the bait. Instead, they have taken the mick. They are introducing artificial intelligence and totally inappropriate chatbots to our children.
The risk assessments that are an absolutely essential building block of the Ofcom regime and the Online Safety Act are an absolute insult to the intelligence of the regulators and of parents. How on earth did a risk assessment ever assess Grok’s new AI tools as being safe for children? It is a complete joke. The noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Clement-Jones, say that these platforms can be moderated, that they can be brought to heel, and that they will abide with the regulator’s will. But we have got to remember that they will not change, because around 25% of their clicks—the page views—come from the children they are targeting, and they are far too reliant on mis-selling those children’s eyeballs as adult eyeballs to advertisers. You cannot regulate far-off tech titans who are reliant on that income. You can only create perimeters in which they can hunt their profits, and that is exactly what the amendment seeks to do.
I recognise that there are sensible, respected voices who take a completely different view. Noble Lords have rightly paid tribute to the Molly Rose Foundation. I know that Ian Russell, and the NSPCC and other charities, have argued that instead of guardrails we should strengthen the Online Safety Act. They say that we should mandate well-being by design requirements, and Ian Russell has said that we should require platforms to prioritise child well-being in algorithmic design, and that age verification creates
“a false sense of security”.
I just do not think that is right. This argument rests on a false premise that we can somehow design our way out of the problem while keeping children on platforms whose entire business model depends on their exploitation. That cannot happen. You cannot algorithmically mitigate something that is not a design problem but a business model problem. The algorithm is not broken; it is doing exactly what it was designed to do: maximise engagement, keep eyes on the screen, and amplify provocative content, because provocative content keeps people clicking, including our children. This is not a market failure; this is a market working as designed by the companies that have monetised our children’s childhood as a commodity.
There are other noble Peers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who are flying a kite on the possibility of some kind of film-style certification system. I also share that dream. What a wonderful world it would be to live in. I lived in that world for many years. Previous to being here, I was the strategy director of Capital Radio, in much-loved local radio, which, in the 1990s, was a warm and loving place to work and operate in. For every single local radio station, the Government had a licence which dictated exactly who they could broadcast to and what content they had on their radio station. If you breached that licence, they pulled it and gave it to someone else. It meant that local radio was extremely compliant with the licence details. Our broadcasting was a warm and lovely thing that was safe for children.
It is completely unrealistic that we are going to appoint something like a modern Radio Authority that will issue licences for every single website in the world and in some way oversee what our children access on those websites. How many bureaucrats would be needed to look at all those licences? How many armies of enforcement agents would be needed to issue the fines? How could we possibly read all that content?
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I support many of the amendments in this group, but I also want to express my concerns about Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened carefully to his arguments and those of other noble Lords who support the amendment. I too am appalled by the many stories that we have heard. I too want to stop children being exposed to harms online. I hope my record in the debates on the Online Safety Act and other digital legislation show my support for measures to increase safety for children in the digital space. I, like all noble Lords, recognise that there are many harms online.
However, I do not think that an outright ban on social media for the under-16s will be effective in protecting children. I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lady Kidron, who I normally always agree with, but we should put all the pressure we possibly can directly on Ofcom to make sure we realise the hopes and dreams of the Online Safety Act.
Early this morning, I had an interesting conversation with Jason Trethowan, who runs headspace, Australia’s national youth mental health charity, which last year was accessed by 170,000 young people aged between 12 and 25 in 170 locations across the country. His organisation is at the sharp end of the social media ban in Australia. His main message was that we all want to stop online harms to children, but he called on the Government and legislators to listen to children as well as parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has quite rightly highlighted the harms that exist for young people on social media. However, noble Lords also need to be aware of the crucial role that social media plays for young people in communicating with each other, getting information about the world and, very importantly, getting help and advice from like-minded people.
Jason said that we all need to understand that young people see the online world as their world. It is a central part of their existence, and no amount of bans will remove them from online space. headspace told me that the ban in Australia, which started on 10 December 2025, was a massive shock for many young people. They had been warned of its arrival for months but still were not prepared for the severing of their contacts on social media. Most did not have the phone numbers to continue communicating with their contacts and suddenly found themselves isolated from their peer groups. Many noble Lords will dismiss these severances as youthful folly, but the charity told me that of 3,000 young people who have been seen since the ban was introduced, 10% included social media bans among the reasons for their mental health deteriorating.
One young person on an isolated farm in rural Australia had used an LGBT group on social media to find like-minded young people. He lived in a household he regarded as homophobic, and was geographically far away from many of his online contacts. Suddenly, he found his support network taken away from him. The schools in Australia are on their summer break until the end of this month, so the full extent of the disruption to the lives of young people is not known.
The young LGBT person will not be able to renew his social media contacts, but rest assured he will find advice somewhere else on the internet. Young people who are banned from social media will find other ways online to assuage their appetites for communication, information and problem-solving.
In Australia, Headspace is already seeing this happening. Young people who can no longer use the 10 major sites, which include Snapchat, X, YouTube, Instagram and Kik, are now migrating to AI sites. Noble Lords have already had debates over concerns about AI as a form of gathering information. Many will be aware of what the West Coast techies call “hallucinations” —the rest of us call them “lies”—appearing in AI research.
Young people are using AI to resolve their problems. On 27 November last year, this House had a debate about banning AI companions, which many young people use for advice. They can be dangerous—my noble friend Lady Kidron told how this led to one young man committing suicide on the advice of an AI companion. Surely, noble Lords do not want to encourage young people to use these AI replacements for social media.
The tech companies will feed that appetite. I know that built into Amendment 94A there is a flexibility for which apps will be used. However, they found in Australia that new platforms are opening all the time. The Australian Government’s original Act banned 10 social media platforms, but already they have had to come up with another list of platforms to ban. This is a game of whack-a-mole, just as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. It will not be solved by ban on social media platforms. The media will always outpace the legislation.
There are so many harms online, on social media and other platforms. We all agree on that. I have spoken to the charities that have been mentioned many times by noble Lords—the Molly Rose Foundation, Internet Matters, NSPCC and the Online Safety Act Network. They have all championed the development of online safety for children, as noble Lords have already mentioned, and all are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s in this country. They suggest that instead of banning social media, the Online Safety Act should be amended. I know that my noble friend Lady Kidron has said that that is not possible to do.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry but the noble Viscount is misreading what I said. I said exactly that.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I apologise. They suggest that the Act should be amended to ensure safety by design for all users, particularly young users.
There is a need to strengthen Ofcom’s response to tech platforms that breach their risk assessments. It needs to put the onus on the platforms to mitigate the risks, instead of defining the mitigation measures and taking action only when there is evidence that these measures actually work. This needs to be combined with the definition of “safety by design”.
I partially support Amendment 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Children’s safety charities have long been calling for age-appropriate content requirements to be introduced for content on social media and across the internet. However, age-appropriate design should be introduced not just for 18 year-olds but for 16 year-olds and even 13 year-olds.
I completely support Amendment 109. I am glad the Government are having a consultation on this issue. I sincerely hope that noble Lords are wrong in saying that this is an attempt to kick this down the road. Addiction is a real problem. This is about engagement and economy, and it needs to be dealt with.
I support the call for Ofcom to revisit its interpretation of the Online Safety Act so that it includes addictive design as one of the harms that it needs platforms to mitigate against. I understand the powerful instinct of noble Lords and many parents to ban social media for under-16s, but I ask them to consider that young people will not be torn away from life online. It will not be possible to force them to leave the digital world, however much a majority of adults want that to happen.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Nash and thank all noble Lords who cosigned it. I am nervous about making this speech today because I am praying that my daughter does not read Hansard.
I speak as a member of this House, of course, but also as a mother. I have a direct and vested interest in this amendment and make no apology for that. But I also feel I have to speak for the army of parents who, like me, have watched, frankly, in disbelief as our children’s childhoods have been steadily hollowed out to varying degrees.
Obviously, lots of us are doing everything we can to keep our children safe. I am the devil incarnate at home because I have not allowed my daughter to use Snapchat. We have gone into a sort of plea-bargaining state, if I can put it that way, whereby I have not allowed Snapchat but have allowed Pinterest. I thought Pinterest was perfectly harmless. I thought it was a nice place where I picked wallpapers and had a jolly nice time going through it. What could possibly be the problem? I was delighted. I said, “Yes, of course you can have Pinterest”. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, it is quite an artistic way to operate. But in fact, Pinterest is now just pushing my daughter a whole load of consumer advertising. She has popped in that she wants a T-shirt of some make or other and, of course, now—bang, bang, bang—the notifications are coming in non-stop.
There is a big reason why we now have teenage girls—not even teenage girls; 11 year-old and 10 year-old girls—slathering their faces with hyaluronic acid and anti-ageing creams, products they should not even know about let alone be buying, not least because they are blooming expensive. It is ridiculous.
Adolescence is a period of profound emotional and neurological change— hormones, friendships, identity and insecurity playing out in a young developing brain. To then introduce the relentless comparison, exposure, validation and amplification of what social media does is to add a weapon to those brains, which are simply too young to cope. Crucially, they just should not be expected to cope.
I completely accept the arguments against a full ban. I hardly ever disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I met with Molly Russell’s father two days ago and have huge respect for him and for the other side of the argument that perhaps it is just too black and white. But I am afraid that these companies absolutely thrive in the complication, sophistication and difficulty. Meanwhile, as a parent, there I am trying to get the parental locks on and to work out how to turn off the mind-boggling push notifications and stop the device going into the bedroom—with degrees of success. Five years ago, a partial ban or platform-led safeguards might have been defensible, had we been dealing with companies worthy of trust. That trust has now completely disintegrated.
From the work I have done on the pornography review, we know that boys aged 11 and probably younger have seen pornography. A boy, before his first kiss, aged 13, will have seen rape porn, strangulation porn and incest porn. Where did he see that porn? Mainly on X. Eight out of 10 sites are social media sites, not pornography sites. That is an outrage, and it was something they knew about and, actually, were actively pushing. It was not that the kids were necessarily looking for it; they were pushing those algorithms on to them. So, how can we possibly trust having a dialogue with these firms when we know that that is their business model, as my noble friend Lord Bethell made very clear?
At the other end of the scale, research shows that 70% of offenders who attempt to contact children do so online. This is a business model that is borderline criminal, certainly very toxic, and so sophisticated. Regardless of the amendments that say, “We’re going to have conversations with Ofcom and we’re going to do X, Y and Z”, they have already made off like bandits with our children’s innocence, and to be perfectly honest I think they will carry on doing so if we take that approach. An overall ban is essential, then afterwards we can look at which apps and sites will be suitable.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, once upon a time, in a previous moral panic about children’s safety, parents reacted to the media and politicians catastrophising by stopping their offspring playing outside unsupervised. The unintended consequence was the creation of what became known as cotton wool kids, prone to risk aversion, anxiety, lack of resilience and social isolation. Ironically, to compensate, many of those children were forced to cultivate their activities online. Their social interactions became virtual, and here we are.
I worry that we risk similar unintended consequences now if we rush to pass a social media ban for under-16s, so I will be opposing Amendment 94A. I know it has become normalised that, whatever social, cultural or moral panics we encounter, we believe that we can legislate to make them go away. I fear that this sort of lawmaking can lead to avoiding tackling difficult problems and to attempts at quick-fix solutions that too often create a whole new raft of difficulties down the line.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, blamed social media for eating disorders, radicalisation, terrorism, the mental health epidemic, ADHD, poor behaviour in the classroom, misogyny, violence against women and girls, and on and on. At this rate, all that Parliament would have to do is ban the internet for everyone and all problems would be solved. There is a danger of looking for easy answers and scapegoating social media for all society’s ills.
I worry about attempts to push this through too quickly or to fast-track it. It is interesting that the three-week fast-track consultation put forward in the other place has been discussed as though it is holding things back. The leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, calls it more “dither and delay”. But this proposal is new; it has only just arrived here on Report as an amendment that would fundamentally change every citizen’s relationship with social media, not just children’s. I worry about attempts at steamrolling it through, with an assumption that everyone agrees that it is so obvious and inevitable that there is no point opposing it. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for an attempt at proportionality, even though I do not think it goes far enough.
We are hectored that this is what parents want. There has not been a referendum of parents, though there are polls. Many parents are pulling their hair out and will be tempted by it—it is so much easier to say, “You can’t because it’s against the law”, than it is to assert adult authority. Teenagers’ and children’s pester power can be the bane of all our lives. If only the law could be extended to ban other things and make them illegal—no, you cannot wear that hoodie; no, you cannot spend hours gaming; no, you cannot go to that sleepover; no, you cannot gorge on junk food; no, you cannot go to that party. In truth, this approach encourages parents to outsource their authority and shifts responsibility from parents to the state. All families ultimately are being told that they are incapable of managing their children's habits, and that is a dangerous precedent. It can disarm parents in the name of empowerment. Is there really a consensus among parents on this? Many of my friends are split down the middle, so I do not think we can claim the evidence is in.
What about the incontrovertible scientific evidence that backs a ban? The jury is out. The causal relationship between social media and mental well-being in teens and young people is much more contested than has been implied. Recent extensive research by academics at Manchester University found no evidence that social media has increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression. The chair of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group, Professor Louis Appleby, points out that the evidence is, at best, circumstantial, noting that self-harming in the young began well before social media took hold in that age group. That reflects what I know from my own work in relation to mental ill-health and young people; I do not think it can totally be blamed on social media.
An Oxford University study of nearly 12,000 children showed no correlation between screen time, including social media, and mental health. Instead, the way in which children engage with social media is what determines its impact and—shock horror—in many instances, evidence shows the positive impact of social media use. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that no more research is needed. That is anti-scientific and complacent, and I do not think it is true.
Let us be clear about what this amendment as drafted would do in relation to user services. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out the dangers to, for example, WhatsApp, websites such as Wikipedia and so on. That needs clarifying at the very least.
Despite histrionic headlines, social media can be used for self-educational ends. There is a new generation of autodidacts who are teaching themselves coding, video producing, editing and even musical instruments, languages and chess. I know that sounds rose-tinted and a bit glib, but social media often is a tool for connections—finding your tribe, making new friends—and a place where you can cultivate solidarity and autonomy as a young person. It can be a counter to the social trend towards fragmentation.
What about allowing the young to explore diverse political perspectives? On the eve of 16 year-olds being given the vote, surely it is important, if not essential, that we do not narrowly restrict soon-to-vote teens to state-sanctioned media channels. We want them to broaden their horizons, and explore and develop a democratic curiosity about the world, and they are going to do that online. When talking to school pupils, as I do often, I recommend that they find out about their peers around the world as part of them learning about international relations. What civic lessons might British children learn by looking at those brave protesters in Iran whose commitment to freedom has given them the courage to take on a theocratic Islamic regime and whose stories we know because they used social media to organise and to connect with each other and the rest of the world? That was, of course, before the ayatollah shut down the internet—oh, the irony.
As for safety and whether this ban will throw children off a cliff edge, it risks not equipping youth with the skills to safely and responsibly navigate the online world, knowing how to identify problems, spot dodgy red flags and apply strategies to deal with them. As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, pointed out, in all likelihood, many pre-16 year-olds will find ways of migrating to even riskier unregulated platforms or the dark web without guardrails and zero moderation. Our teenagers and children are clever and, dare I say it, devious. They will find a way. They will use VPNs—but it is okay, because noble Lords are going to ban those too. I hear that there is already a roaring trade in fake IDs among pre-teens.
Finally, how will over 16 year-old adults be affected by this ban? Whereas the Online Safety Act age-gated only certain types of harmful content, Amendment 94A would age-gate entire platforms, even when the content is child-friendly or harmless. According to Big Brother Watch, a 70 year-old accessing the neighbourhood news, a 50 year-old looking up the history of golf on Wikipedia, a 30 year-old small business owner responding to customers on Instagram and a 17 year-old wanting to message parents on the way home from school would all require age-verification measures. That is the threat to adult civil liberties and the right to privacy and, in effect, it means that we will have to digitally verify to participate in the public square. I do not necessarily think that young people will gain from this, despite the hyperbole.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that we are on Report, and I think some of the contributions are in danger of erring on the wrong side of self-regulation. We should stick to the point; I will be very brief and simply try to explain for the benefit of the Government Front Bench, because in various Bills going through Parliament in the last month or so, this subject has raised itself in various forms. I sometimes notice the Front Bench being slightly amazed at what is coming at them from all sides and not necessarily understanding why. That is largely because they were not in your Lordships’ House at the time we went through the lengthy discussions about the Online Safety Act. What they are hearing today is a collective howl of rage and frustration across the House because what we thought we were very clear was meant to happen has not happened. I will give one or two facts which back up the view of my noble friend Lady Kidron that, whatever we do, we have to gather together—the right reverend Prelate made a very good point—and collectively send a message to the other place that this situation is simply not good enough.
Today, within the last 10 hours, a court case has been going on in California against Snap, Meta and TikTok where a group of parents are accusing those organisations of creating products which are addictive. It so happens that in the last 24 hours, Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, has settled with the complainants. That is because, I suspect, if they had not settled, the chief executive of Snapchat, Evan Spiegel, would shortly have had to appear in person in the court to answer the case against his company. He chose not to do so. Mr Zuckerberg is apparently also in the queue to give evidence at this trial, and it will be interesting to see whether his company takes the same route.
Yesterday, along with many other colleagues, I was part of a session of Learn with the Lords in the Education Centre. I took the opportunity to talk to the young people, most of whom were 14 and 15, about what they thought of a social media ban, which all of them were aware of—probably through social media. Almost without exception, they said they were against it and gave the sort of reasons one would expect, such as “That’s where we get our news from”, and so on. The teachers were completely and utterly in favour of a ban. We can take from that what we will, but I suspect the fact that they see day in and day out in the schoolroom the effect on the pupils they are trying to help, to develop and to manage—and to mitigate, in some cases, difficult behaviours—means that are completely united that this is unsustainable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that in Australia they have a different regulator, an e-safety commissioner. Comparing the e-safety commissioner in Australia with what we have in Ofcom is a bit like comparing “Crocodile Dundee” with “Dixon of Dock Green”. The difference is that stark.
Last week in the Peers’ Lobby, I met one of the bereaved parents whose child has died as a result of exposure to social media. I told that bereaved parent that a group of us were going to meet the chief executive of Ofcom within the next couple of weeks. He looked me straight in the eye and said, “Simon, would you give the chief executive a message from me?”. I said, “Yes, of course”. He said—and you will excuse my Anglo-Saxon—“Would you kick her up the arse?”.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Kidron and the right reverend Prelate. We have a choice to make today, and I hope that we will make the right choice.
I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which is really important. Early years matter—they matter so much that we must do everything we can to protect them.
I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to which I have added my name. I wish to speak on Amendment 94A, which is really important, as I strongly believe that children under the age of 16 should not be able to access social media and have social media accounts. This is a necessary measure until the online platforms accept their responsibility, implement stringent safety controls and perform their duties to our children. We have given them the opportunities to do so; now is the time for us to act decisively. Each minute we wait, more damage is done to our children’s well-being.
It is great that the Government have moved on this issue, but they have done so in the wrong direction. There is no need for a consultation, which will cause even further delay. We have all the evidence we need; we have to stop this catastrophe now. The world is watching us, and I believe that many countries will follow suit, because this is a global crisis.
There are those who believe that this amendment is a blunt instrument and will prevent children accessing the outside world. I do not agree. Let us consider the options. What would we rather have: children becoming addicted, showing signs of anxiety, even taking their own lives and being exposed to the terrible age-inappropriate dangers allowed by social media providers, who do not have our children’s interests at heart, or protecting them until those social media providers get their act together? I know which option I would choose. This amendment sends a clear message to those who want to harm our children and fail to protect them. They have failed in their duty, and now is the time for us to act.
It is important to make clear that children do not need a social media account to access the internet. I am not proposing to ban children from the internet, which is a great source of information for their educational studies on platforms such as Wikipedia or BBC Bitesize. The amendment is preventive. It would prevent them having social media accounts where they can be contacted and reveal personal and private details that expose them to potential abuse, harm or coercive behaviour. The word “ban” is emotive, but the amendment is a preventive measure in the same way that children cannot buy alcohol or a lottery ticket. You would not allow your children to freely play on the motorway, so why do we allow them to easily open social media accounts that can cause harm and trauma and, in some cases, endanger their lives?
For the last 20 years or more, I have been speaking out and begging children to resist temptation and to be aware of what the online world was seducing them into. I have begged them to switch off and say no to these temptations, which lead them down a path of potential harm. Unfortunately, my message and warnings did not spread far enough and we are now facing a crisis, an epidemic of children suffering from mental health issues, depression, isolation, bullying, blackmail and intimidation—the frightening list goes on and on— because of their exposure to the dark side of social media.
What have we done to our children? Many of them have had their innocent childhoods snatched away from them, sliding down into a cesspit of uncontrolled harm, danger and disturbing behaviour. The scary reality of the depression and mental health issues that children are experiencing is frightening. According to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, there was a 22.7% increase in suicide rates of those aged between 10 and 24 between 2012 and 2022. It has been well documented that adolescents are showing rising addiction to social media and face a doubled risk of suicidal behaviour. There has been a fivefold increase in eating disorders among 11 to 16 year-olds, according to the NHS Digital mental health of children and young people in England survey. The Nuffield Foundation predicts that GCSE results will worsen steadily over the years to come, when fewer than 40% of pupils will achieve good grades in maths and English. The decline in children being exposed to books and reading skills is now becoming evident, and many organisations, such as BookTrust, are striving to encourage reading and to persuade children to pick up books and become lovers of the written word.
Another worrying concern for us all, as highlighted last year by the Children’s Commissioner, is that 59% of children first saw pornography by accident and 27% have seen pornography by the age of 11. One mother told me that her four year-old was abused by a 10 year-old who said to her, “I’m going to rape you and you’re going to like it”. Where did he get that kind of language from?
In one Demos focus group, every single girl had received unsolicited sexual images. There is also evidence that children are now using mainstream social media to host live sexual content for payment. How did we get to this? Why have we allowed it to happen? The proportion of children reported as perpetrators of sexual offences is rising, driven significantly by early exposure to pornography. This is something that I have long lobbied to prevent. Thank goodness we now have Ofcom-implemented protection due to the Online Safety Act.
Social media can be addictive and consume time and energy in a negative way, especially for young people. Research from the World Health Organization has found that 11% of adolescents globally show signs of problematic social media use: addiction-like symptoms, including the inability to control usage; withdrawal symptoms when offline; neglect of other activities; and signs of anxiety. In England, 20% of 11 year-old girls and 23% of 13 year-old girls have problematic usage. That is three to five times higher than adult alcohol dependency and 3.5 times higher than adult drug dependency. Let us release our children from this dependency and anxiety. Let us set them free from all this. We must do that.
Children need a world of positive role models, giving them a holistic understanding of the world around them, presented in a verified way, not an online environment that distorts their thinking, behaviour and perception of the world with misinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news—a world filled with influencers, a world making them feel inadequate. My daughter is a teacher and is having to deal with the outcome of all this on a daily basis, like so many other teachers across the country.
What is social media doing to our children today and exposing them to? What type of future is ahead of them? If we do nothing now to protect our children and grandchildren, we should be ashamed of ourselves, as the damage to young minds and heartaches of families will only increase. There is an argument for more parental control, but parents cannot look over their shoulder 24/7; they need our help.
I urge the Government to back the amendment and help to protect our children, because there is a strong case from teachers, health practitioners, parents and law enforcement that children under the age of 16 should not be able to access social media accounts. We have a huge responsibility to safeguard our precious children and their well-being. The amendment is vital. It would send a clear message to those who would harm our children and allow them to be scarred for life. As I always say and will say again, childhood lasts a lifetime. That is why I wholeheartedly support Amendment 94A, and I urge other Members to do the same.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 94A, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In the interests of time I will not talk about the other amendments, but I commend the noble Baroness on her introduction of this group of amendments.
There are a handful of issues that consume me on a daily basis, and the negative impact of social media on millions of children and young people in this country is one of them. Despite the important introduction of the Online Safety Act to control illegal material and prevent children accessing harmful and inappropriate content, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, expertly articulated, not a week goes by in this place when we do not hear how Ofcom is struggling to enact and enforce this important legislation. That law does nothing to protect the next generation from social media, with its highly addictive algorithms, its constant notifications, its ability for unsolicited contact by people unknown to children and its barrage of content that young people are not even seeking or searching for. While it might not fall under the definitions of illegal or harmful, it is still misogynistic, divisive and shaming; diminishes our children’s self-worth; is racist, dangerous, and violent; and contains a disproportionate amount of misinformation and disinformation. We are going backwards because, if we do nothing, the situation will only get worse as the tech companies continue to fight for our children and young people’s attention and develop their social media products to get as many eyeballs on their platforms as they can in the pursuit of profit.
As one of the handful of parents in this place with primary-age children, I am deeply concerned by the constant stream of case studies that I hear from other parents about the effect that social media is having on their children, who have had to move school due to bullying on social media, who have had the police turn up on their doorstep due to their children being groomed or exploited on social media platforms, or whose child is in in-patient mental health care for eating disorders they are suffering from that have been amplified due to social media use.
I am deeply concerned having listened closely to our teachers, who, as we have heard, are having to grapple on a daily basis in the classroom with the consequences of the content that our children and young people are being bombarded with on social media and the impact it is having on their attainment. That is no surprise, given that Ofcom tells us that the average time our children are spending on these platforms is 21 hours a week.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I have absolutely no desire to stifle debate, but I ask anyone who wishes still to speak to be very mindful of the number of votes we are expecting at the end of this group. We also have very important dinner break business scheduled for tonight. Please be brief and to the point so we can move on with this important debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have two original points to make that have not been covered at all. We should bring ourselves back to the fact that there is an enormous amount of agreement around this Chamber. I think everyone will say we feel enormous sympathy for the families, some of whom are here today, who have lost family as a result of contact with social media. We all accept that we want 16 year-olds on the day of their birthday to be able to stride out into the world confident, capable, ready to step into adulthood. Most of us want to rein in the overwhelmingly powerful digital companies which have been allowed to run wild across the world by political decisions made by adults. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate for naming the spectre in the room—Donald Trump and his tech bro friends. He is a spectre here and is now recorded in Hansard.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we have very broad agreement that the Online Safety Act has been a total failure and Ofcom is not delivering what it should be doing. Those are the points of agreement. Where my conclusions drive me is that I would back Amendment 91 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with some caveats, which I will get back to, but it is not my intention to vote for any of the ban amendments before us today. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lib Dems’ brave effort to find a way through a middle road and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, almost swayed me that we should make a gesture. The case I put, argument one, is that your Lordships’ House is not the right place: we are not the right people to be making this decision. Many of us have joined since the depths of Covid, but those who were here then will remember when the House went largely remote and lots of people who had never used a computer before were suddenly on Zoom. We met their grandkids: “There you are, Granny. You are off mute now”.
I invite your Lordships to look at the people around you. We are extraordinarily unrepresentative of the country in many ways, but particularly in terms of age. This is where I draw on the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, but come to a different conclusion. I was also in the learning centre and spoke to some of the same pupils. They overwhelmingly said, “We do not want a ban”. My argument is that we must stop doing politics to young people. We must give young people agency and a sense of control. We have bequeathed to them a disastrous, damaging world; failing to give them a say in this is absolutely the wrong way forward.
On that point, I have a serious proposal for the Minister. In the consultation, are the Government prepared to include a people’s assembly that represents young people from around the country? Rather than just asking young people to tick a box in a survey—we all know what happens with “yes” or “no” votes—this would give them the chance to deliberate on how they think we can control the future and improve their situation.
My second point is important and has not been said before. In this debate we have heard a huge amount of scapegoating of social media. Social media is a mirror: it reflects the misogyny, violence, racism and fake news that runs across and through our society, it does not create it. If we could wave a magic wand and get young people off social media, they would still be affected by the dreadful levels of poverty and the schools that operate as exam factories, putting them under tremendous pressure and subjecting them to unbearable discipline. They would still have parents who are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They would still encounter all the misogyny and racism in our society. When we are debating and voting on this, we must understand that social media is a mirror; it is not creating where we are now.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly about the lack of scientific evidence for Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. No one disputes that rates of suicide, depression, anxiety and self-harm have increased among teenagers in the last decade. However, the question before us is whether a social media ban for under-16s would decrease those rates.
I know that this has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, but I still believe that evidence from randomised controlled trials is important, even in this context. There have been no randomised controlled trials of social media bans or restrictions for healthy under-18s. The lack of experimental evidence in adolescent populations may be because it is difficult to experimentally manipulate social media use in such an age group. There was one RCT of 220 adolescents and young adults aged 17 to 25 with pre-existing emotional distress, who were asked to reduce their social media use to one hour a day for three weeks. However, the sample participants selected were all experiencing at least two of four symptoms of depression and anxiety, and should therefore be classified as a clinical sample, not a representative sample of the general population.
There is an RCT of adolescent participants from which we can learn, even though it has not started. It is funded by the Wellcome Trust and it will take place in Bradford and feature adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16. The intervention will not be a ban, but will involve a smartphone app that, importantly, limits the use of social media apps using a co-produced combination of a daily budget of one hour per day and a night-time curfew between 9 pm and 7 am.
The co-production of the trial is very important. We need to hear the voice of young people when designing these interventions. They themselves are very concerned by the negative impacts of social media. Perhaps not surprisingly, the feedback from the teenagers in Bradford schools was that they would be against a ban, but they would be willing to accept significant time limits on their use of social media.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will also endeavour to be brief. Like many who have spoken already, I spent a very large amount of time on the Online Safety Act. I agree entirely with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This is a cry of pain and anger from this House that I hope the Minister is hearing, but I do not think that banning social media for under-16s is the right thing to do. I will add two reasons that have not been discussed so far.
First, I worry that absolutely nothing will change by implementing a ban. We already have a minimum age of 13; go into any primary school and you will find how effective that is. I urge the Minister to tell us how she is going to implement the minimum age we already have. How is she going to stiffen Ofcom’s backbone to hold tech companies to account? Otherwise, we can legislate all we like, but it will not make any difference.
Secondly, I have huge respect for the eloquence with which my noble friend Lord Nash set out the horrors and harms that social media is undoubtedly doing, but there is one flaw in his argument. He quoted a lot of research that points to the harm that excessive use of social media does to children. A ban, however, is zero use. We must be very careful about that. Social media is part of the modern world; it brings good as well as ill, and to simply ban it is abdicating responsibility.
I worry hugely that we are letting the tech companies off the hook. We have to hold them to account to produce products that are age appropriate. We have done that with every other technology as it has grown up over the centuries, and we should not duck the issue now. That takes me to the right reverend Prelate’s point, which seems like quite a long time ago. I am in the same dilemma, because I am absolutely certain that change has to happen, that the Online Safety Act is not working as those of us who worked so hard on it envisaged, and that Ofcom is not delivering. I doubt that more consultation solves that problem. But I am worried about passing this baton back to our colleagues in the other place. I am worried because a ban on social media has a nice ring to it. I am worried when I hear Ian Russell say that we must not use our children as a political football. We must really work out what the right answer to this problem is.
I ask the Minister to listen to this emotional debate. Those of us who worked on the Online Safety Act can see that there are about hundredfold more people in this Chamber now than there were at any stage of the Online Safety Act. That shows how much we all care about it now—not just that everyone is waiting for a vote. I ask the Minister please to hear the concern, the fury and the need to act. But, my goodness, if we send this back to the other place, I hope it will not translate into a blanket ban on social media for under-16s but into proper action to make the internet a better place for our children.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
With respect, everyone else has had an opportunity to speak, but no one from my party has, and I want to make some remarks. The House should draw a level of unity from the fact that, although a variety of solutions are provided by these amendments, common threads run between them: a common acceptance of the level of crisis that our young people face, and a common desire, I think, to provide greater levels of protection for our young people.
On the competing and well-argued cases for the amendments, I am more persuaded by Amendment 94A from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which I believe is cleaner, clearer and bolder. Nevertheless, whichever amendment we settle on, I agree with others that the one thing we cannot afford to do as a House tonight is to prevaricate. I cannot put myself in the mind of the Government. Therefore, I cannot determine whether the proposed consultation is a sincere attempt to engage seriously with this issue or, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a cynical device to get past the problems internally in the Commons.
There are clear problems with the consultation. First, it does not produce any guaranteed outcome. A lot of us are concerned that, over a prolonged period of time, the muscle of the big tech companies will adjust that to water down whatever comes forward. Secondly, it does not produce swift results. We do not know a timeframe that ultimately will lead to implementation. The longer we delay, the more harm is caused to children. Where possible, we should always be reluctant to ban and restrict but, when we look at the protection of children, we have to make an exception to that. The case for action now is overwhelming.
During the passage of the Online Safety Bill, one of the most moving and significant meetings that I attended was one hosted by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, where she brought in families of children who had died as a result of various online harms. There was a common thread for a lot of those families: they had become victims because of social media. Whether that was issues around self-harm, suicide, sexploitation, bullying or a range of other things, a major danger is out there.
I acknowledge that the gathering mental health tsunami among our young people did not start with social media, but it has been exacerbated by it, and we need to take action against it. Even below that level, we are faced with, as I have seen it put, a “zombification” of our young generation. No one is suggesting in this debate that any solution that we produce will entirely be a panacea or 100% watertight and effective in its nature. But, if we took that approach to its logical conclusion, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, we would simply have no restrictions on young people on any subject or harm. So we need to grasp the nettle.
In conclusion, there is a stark choice before us tonight. We can either embrace the clarion call of the overwhelming majority of parents on this issue and take bold and decisive action to protect our young people, or we can kick the can down the road and neglect our duty to those young people. I hope the House chooses the former tonight.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will speak to my Amendments 108 and 110A, and briefly to Amendment 91 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I start by thanking the hundreds of thousands of mums, dads, grandparents, single parents, teachers, et cetera, who have kick-started this campaign. While politicians have not been able to get action, they have swung into action.
If noble Lords talk to any MP of any party in this Parliament, they will tell you that they receive hundreds of thousands of emails and letters. I was talking to our digital lead MP, Victoria Collins, and she told me that, in the last three days alone, she has received 1,500 pieces of paper about this. Why? It is because parents do not trust us to do anything. Of course, with the Online Safety Act, they were promised that we would see a new world, but when they look around they see that nothing has changed. Frighteningly, when I asked the Minister a few weeks ago how many companies have been fined or prosecuted for what they have put online, he did not know the answer. That does not fill us with confidence.
Creating a safer future for our children and grandchildren is at a critical crossroads. Our parents, teachers, experts and even young people themselves are calling for action. I hear from real teenagers talking about their experiences online. One teenager said:
“I look at my younger brother and I’m so worried about how much he seems addicted to screens, we have to do something”.
Another said:
“Help, I just can’t stop”.
When doctors discovered that smoking kills, and when research showed that seatbelts saved lives, we acted. Today presents an opportunity to take a similar life-saving action.
It is clear that everyone here is strongly committed to this end goal—to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. Parents and children are both telling us that they feel powerless in the face of platforms designed to maximise engagement at any cost. We see the evidence mounting in our schools, with rising rates of anxiety and depression among young people. Consultations that kick the can down the road are not enough when we face a public health crisis.
So the question before us is not whether or not we must act but how effectively and how quickly we can act. One approach, that of the the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is a blanket ban on social media for under-16s, as well as on many other areas of the internet. I fully support the intent of this approach. Again, we are all here in the name of children’s well-being and the decisive action that is needed. But, as we have heard, we have heard from over 42 charities and experts, including the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Centre for Protecting Women Online, and 5rights, and they all have major concerns about this approach. These are the experts—I am not an expert, noble Lords are not the experts, but they are and they deal with this every day, and yet they have concerns about this approach.
We can look to Australia and see why. When Australia banned social media for young people, it took an approach similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, creating a specific list of prohibited platforms. What was the result? Within 24 hours of TikTok’s ban, the company launched a new platform under a different name, one not on the banned list. More fundamentally, this list-based approach ignores the broader digital landscape: the harms presented in online gaming, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, does nothing about; AI-generated content; and countless other platforms that fall outside these narrow definitions.
Lord Nash (Con)
I must take objection to that. We had a meeting on Monday. I made some proposals, and then the noble Lords went away and I heard nothing. They came back with their amendment. I think that is slightly glossing over the facts.
Lord Storey (LD)
We must ensure that children are protected online and send a message to the Government that now is the time for action, not consultation. As Liberal Democrats, we know that children come before politics. We must work together for their safety and future.
I turn briefly to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I praise and thank the noble Lord for taking this initiative. He deserves a lot of thanks from this House. He has worked tirelessly to get a solution. I was concerned when he said that we had rushed out a counter-amendment. We have not rushed out a counter-amendment at all. Children’s charities came to us and expressed their concerns, and we wanted to ensure that we listened to what they said. We have tried to incorporate that in the amendment. We tried to work with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to achieve an amendment that we could both support.
At the end of the day, as I said on my previous amendment, it is children who are important. We are not interested in playing yah-boo politics or trying to score points. We will support Lord Nash’s amendment because we understand, as the right reverend Prelate rightly noted, that something has to come back to this House on which we, as a House, can then work together.
I turn briefly to Amendment 110A.
Lord Storey (LD)
This amendment is in my name. We are on to Front-Bench speakers and I have spoken for only 10 minutes.
In Amendment 110A, we propose raising the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16. This amendment covers platforms where users create profiles, interact and share content. It would exclude educational platforms used in schools and universities for educational purposes, as well as health services such as NHS Digital platforms and crisis helplines that process data and provide care and support.
Raising the age is vital to the well-being of children in this country, who must navigate an increasingly digitalised world. Social networking services often use personal data for the purposes of delivering personalised content, such as targeted advertising and curated recommendations. Such things have been condemned by Ofsted, as they can have a substantial negative impact on children. Algorithm-driven content can keep children scrolling for hours, disrupting sleep patterns, physical activity and face-to-face social development. Targeted advertising can exploit children’s vulnerabilities, promoting an unrealistic body image and exposing them to age-inappropriate products, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. Recommendation algorithms can create echo chambers that amplify harmful content. Children can be exposed to content such as extreme dieting advice and self-harm material at a developmental stage when they are particularly impressionable and cannot critically evaluate what they are being shown. This amendment is therefore key to children’s well-being.
The years between 13 and 16 represent a critical window of opportunity where children can be susceptible to the design features that social media platforms employ to maximise engagement. By allowing platforms to harvest and exploit the personal data of 13 year-olds, we are essentially permitting commercial entities to conduct behavioural manipulation on children at their most vulnerable. The mental health crisis among young people, with rising rates of anxiety, depression and eating disorders, cannot be divorced from the datafication of childhood and the attention economy that profits from it. My amendment is simple: the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services should be raised, so as to provide children with three additional years of protection from commercial data exploitation during a critical period of their development.
Finally—
Lord Storey (LD)
I was going to speak to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, but certain Members are heckling me. I will just say how important this amendment is and that I hope the House will support it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, a good speech is a short speech.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I have spent most of this debate rewriting my speech. I have tried hard to listen to what noble Lords have said. We have three options before us tonight: the Government option of a consultation; the Liberal Democrat option; and the option from my noble friend, Lord Nash, as it relates to social media.
Briefly, before I talk about the three options, I would like to say to my noble friend Lady Penn that, rather than being a warm-up act, she gave us a master class in how to present an amendment. She made a well-argued, practical case for her amendment, underlining the importance of shifting norms for very young children at the earliest possible stage and calling urgently for firm action, and timing on that action, from the Government. Like others, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.
To return to the group of amendments that deal with social media use, we have before us, as we have heard, an opportunity to end the harm that our children and grandchildren are experiencing as a result of the hours that they spend on there. I was going to talk about the merits of my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I think others have done that extremely ably.
I will therefore turn to the key differences between my noble friend’s amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Between the fiercely critical comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Ofcom struggling and critically undermining implementation and wider failures, and the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of Ofcom being to the tech companies as “Dixon of Dock Green” is to “Crocodile Dundee”, I think those noble Lords have done my job for me. The key element in the Liberal Democrat amendment is that we would give powers to Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to decide which apps are safe or not safe. Whether it is my noble friend Lady Harding, who may be in a slightly different place in this debate than I am, or many other noble Lords around the House, they have noted that Ofcom is struggling with the powers that it was given in the Online Safety Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, put it extremely well. Do your Lordships want to give to a struggling organisation one of the most complicated jobs before us? I would suggest that we do not. It should of course advise the Children’s Commissioner and the Government, but it should not be responsible.
The second reason it should not be responsible is one of democracy. We have too many recent examples, of which your Lordships will be aware, where we have delegated incredibly important powers to unelected and relatively unaccountable officials, however competent they might be, and we should not do that again. Our democracy depends on our colleagues at the other end being given the chance to decide, and Parliament deciding, what is or is not appropriate for our children, taking advice from every expert that they can draw on, many of whom we have heard from this evening.
Thirdly—I was finding it hard to wait to the end to get to this point—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, should be not mentioned anywhere near this endless reference to a “blunt, blanket ban”. I was so grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, as I was about to read out proposed new subsection (5) of Amendment 94A from my noble friend and the noble Baroness. This would not be a blanket ban, and it is, if I may say so, irresponsible of noble Lords who kept asserting that and referring to it as such, even once my noble friend had clarified that it was not the case. Crucially, proposed new subsection (2)(b) would also give our Government time to learn both from some of the scientific work that is going on and from the Australian approach. Amendment 94B would add neither in terms of flexibility or future-proofing but would dilute democratic accountability, which we do at our peril.
Turning to the Government, I would say that now is the time for leadership on this issue. The proposed consultation and approach set out in yesterday’s Statement, with a government amendment at Third Reading, does not feel like leadership. We have heard tonight that we do not need another national conversation. The nation has spoken very clearly about its level of concern, and parents and children will not thank us for further delay. The Government argue that views are divided, and we have heard tonight that the children’s charities are split and bereaved parents are split. If we wait for consensus on this issue, the one thing I am confident of is that not a single one of us will still be in your Lordships’ House. As Martin Luther King wisely said,
“a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus”.
The Government need to get moulding, and fast, because we owe it to our children to act now to protect their childhood.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear from the debate that we have had this evening that this is an issue about which there is considerable concern. This Government recognise those concerns about the impact of screen time and about children’s online safety, particularly given some immensely troubling cases. This is a topic of profound national interest and, understandably, as we have also heard today, there are a range of opinions. However, one thing that we are all aligned on is the importance of keeping children safe. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology set out just yesterday in the other place, we are determined to help parents, children and young people to navigate these issues. We know many in this House and the other place have concerns around children’s online safety, how much screen time they get and how this can impact well-being. Rest assured that the Government hear those concerns and are prepared to act to deal with them.
I will come to yesterday’s announcement of a new consultation looking at how to improve children’s relationship with social media, but we should first recognise the significant action that this Government have already taken. The Online Safety Act brought in one of the most robust systems globally, with ground-breaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Much discussion today has been, as some have called it, frustration at the extent to which that is being fully utilised, but Ofcom has been prioritising its initial enforcement action against the most egregious harms, such as child sexual abuse material, self-harm content and children accessing pornography.
We fully expect further enforcement action to come. We have been very clear to Ofcom that it has the Government’s full backing to take enforcement action. We have since built on the Act’s foundations. First, we made content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence. This provides users the strongest protections in the Act against this awful content. Last week my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra stood in this Chamber and confirmed that we will expedite legislation to criminalise the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and that this will be designated a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. Following this we made intimate image abuse and cyber flashing priority offences, and following that we have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models used to create child sexual abuse material. But we know that there is more to be done.
Amendments 91 and 106 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seek to update the early years foundation stage statutory framework and ensure a public information campaign on screen use by children aged nought to five. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has prosecuted this case with considerable energy and by bringing evidence to the Government. She has engaged well and the Government have taken action. Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education announced that we will publish new practical, evidence-informed guidance for parents on early years screen time. Following a review led by the Children’s Commissioner and Professor Russell Viner, the new guidance will be published this April and made available to parents through the Best Start in Life website, giving them the clarity and support they are asking for to navigate screen time with their youngest children. The first meeting of the advisory group is tomorrow.
As part of this, we are going further still on screen time by developing guidance for parents of children aged five to 16, building on the early years guidance already under way. This will help parents to navigate the issue and support healthy conversations with their children about screen time. We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS to ensure that screen time guidance and messaging to parents and families are delivered through the most suitable and impactful channels to ensure that all professionals, including those in the health system, have simple and practical messages to offer parents. We will use multiple routes, extending beyond government channels, to raise awareness of it among parent audiences, including the Best Start in Life website, designed to provide trusted and supportive information for parents.
We think this new guidance should be available for early years practitioners. We will update the non-statutory guidance to provide further information and emphasis on screen time and outline the considerations around adult use of technology within settings and any implications this has on interactions with children. Where needed, the provider guidance will go beyond the early years screen time guidance for parents and we will take the next opportunity to incorporate the updated help for early years providers guidance in the early years foundation stage frameworks. In addition, the department is preparing to review our non-statutory curriculum guidance for early years settings, Development Matters. As part of this, we will include information on screen time and digital literacy to support early years practitioners and teachers to build and design an effective curriculum.
We are taking more action on appointing an expert panel to inform guidance for the sector on the effective and safe use of digital devices and CCTV. If findings from that review indicate that the requirements within the early years foundation stage need to be strengthened, we will of course do so. On the point about timing, we are able to commit that substantial changes will be made to the early years foundation stage after September 2026, but we will do this as soon as possible and no later than April 2027.
The provisions of the Online Safety Act have set the foundations and we are taking further immediate action, with new screen time guidance to support parents of early years children and practitioners. But we have always been clear that we will continue acting to protect children online and their wider well-being. Most debate on amendments today has been on those that seek to regulate children’s relationship with social media. Amendment 92 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is on VPN services. Amendment 94A was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I accept the points made by noble Lords that the noble Lord has prompted considerable debate on this. Amendment 94B was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. Amendments 108 to 110A were all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is clear that there is a range of different views on the action that we need to take, even as there is a consensus that action is needed.
As many will be aware, yesterday the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that we are taking still further action, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government. We will launch a short, sharp consultation on how to improve children’s relationship with social media. This will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. We are determined to help parents, children and young people deal with these issues, with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their well-being and prepares them for the future. As we have seen play out in this debate today, while there is consensus that a problem remains, there is a difference of opinion on how children’s relationship with social media and screen time should be further tackled. This is shown, as several noble Lords have identified, by some of the most prominent voices in this field believing that a social media ban is not the right answer. This is exactly why we are consulting on this matter.
As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology stated yesterday, this is not about whether we should act; it is about how we should act. The consultation will seek views on a range of measures on many issues that have been raised: determining the right minimum age for children to access social media, including exploring a ban for children under a certain age; exploring ways to improve the accuracy of age assurance; and reviewing whether the current age of digital consent is the right age. It will also include reviewing children’s use of VPNs and how these can circumvent online safety protections. It will be accompanied by a national conversation. It is centring the voices of parents, children, those with lived experiences and people who work closely with children across the public sector. We will be sure to capture voices from across society, including the most vulnerable.
Rest assured that we intend to move quickly on this. As I say, it will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. To reassure the House, as the Secretary of State set out clearly yesterday, we want to act on this. We have had constructive conversations with noble Lords about these issues and we are keen to continue those conversations ahead of Third Reading to find a way forward on the Bill that allows action to be taken following the consultation and, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to enable the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to deliver the relevant, evidence-based outcomes of the consultation. As I have set out, the question is not whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly. The question is how to do this most effectively. I hope that this will reassure noble Lords of the Government’s intention and that they will feel able not to press their amendments in this area.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 93 and 110B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Nash and Lord Storey. Amendment 93 would require any device sold in the UK to be preloaded with technology to prevent the recording, sharing and viewing of child sexual abuse material. Amendment 110B would prevent the creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material. I acknowledge noble Lords’ intention to protect children through these amendments. I want to be clear that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. My only plea to noble Lords, as we take this issue forward beyond today’s debate in the Chamber—as I have no doubt that we will—is that we keep the interests of our very youngest children in mind. If we think that companies and the regulator take this seriously, how can it be that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from one in four to nearly 40% in just two years, since the Online Safety Act was passed? If the fact that one in five two year-olds is spending five hours a day on average on a screen is not a call to arms then I do not know what is.
On my Amendment 91, I welcome the commitments from the Government. The gap is now small, indeed it narrowed by a further few months during the course of this long debate, and I will hold them to account for delivering on it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 91.
“Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United Kingdom(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must, for the purpose of furthering the protection and wellbeing of children, make regulations which prohibit the provision to UK children of a relevant VPN service (the “child VPN prohibition”).(2) Regulations under subsection (1)—(a) may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child;(b) must apply the child VPN prohibition to the provider of any relevant VPN service which is, or is likely to be—(i) offered or marketed to persons in the United Kingdom;(ii) provided to a significant number of persons;(c) must make provision for the monitoring and effective enforcement of the child VPN prohibition.(3) OFCOM may produce guidance for providers of relevant VPN services to assist them in complying with the child VPN prohibition.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18;“consumer” means a person acting otherwise than in the course of a business;“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;“UK child” means any child who is in the United Kingdom.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote and protect children’s wellbeing, and to further support child protective measures in the Online Safety Act, by prohibiting the provision to children in the United Kingdom of VPN services which can facilitate evasion of OSA age-gating processes.
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to social media(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children— (a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of social media by children at different ages and developmental stages, and(b) by regulations made by statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly- effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users.(2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on 'Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews'”, and(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.(3) Any regulations under subsection (1)(b) must be treated as an enforceable requirement within the meaning of section 131 (and for the purposes of Part 7) of the Online Safety Act 2023.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)(b) or subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—(a) England,(b) Wales,(c) Scotland, and(d) Northern Ireland;“regulated user-to-user services” shall have the meaning given to it in the Online Safety Act 2023, subject to any modification, addition or exclusion as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations made by statutory instrument under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to their use of social media by commissioning advice from the Chief Medical Officers and introducing regulations to prevent under 16s from accessing social media.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“subject to any exemptions under subsection (1A).
(1A) Any exemptions to regulations made under subsection (1)(b)—(a) must be specified only by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner acting jointly, and(b) can only apply where—(i) the primary purpose of the exemption is to address or mitigate harms arising from social media use by children,(ii) the exemption specifies an alternative minimum age to that provided under subsection (1)(b), and(iii) the provider of the service has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner that it—(A) meets Ofcom’s guidance concerning appropriate, risk-based minimum ages,(B) has due regard to relevant standards and principles of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, (C) has particular regard to the importance of protecting the rights and best interests of children, as recognised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,(D) has considered the potential impact of the service on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children,(E) has investigated the extent to which the service’s design, functionalities or features may encourage addictive or compulsive use, and(F) has considered and reviewed the use of algorithms for content recommendation, amplification or targeted advertising.(1B) Regulations made under subsection (1)(b) must also provide for—(a) periodic review of any exemption to ensure the continuing adequacy of protection for children, and(b) amendment or revocation of an exemption where Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner are no longer satisfied as to the matters set out in subsection (1A)(b)(iii).”
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank all noble Lords for the debate that we have had, but I would still like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break business. We will return to the Bill not before 8.36 pm—
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I meant 9.36 pm —wishful thinking; I was just checking that your Lordships are all with me—to allow time for ping-pong on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motion A1. It is a pleasure to bring back this important Bill to your Lordships’ House. The ambition to create a new national memorial to the Holocaust has been pursued by successive Governments, with support across all parties, for a number of years. The need for such a memorial and for a learning centre, which will remind people of the terrible facts of the Holocaust, seems only to have increased during this time.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to noble Lords who participated in the early stages of this Bill, in particular my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, who worked so diligently to promote the Bill through its earlier stages in the House. I also acknowledge and thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for his commitment over many decades, commemorating and learning from the Holocaust. I was delighted to hear today that he has been invited to attend a special session of the Council of Europe on Monday to mark Holocaust Memorial Day.
I recognise that there are many different opinions and strong views about the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre, especially regarding the proposed location. Earlier debates on the Bill addressed those matters in depth. Today’s debate will focus on a much narrower question, though a question of considerable importance. On Report, the House supported the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which aimed to ensure that the sole purpose of the learning centre should be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. I recognise that the intent and the sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure that there is no mission creep and that, in the focus of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, there should be no attempt to divert attention from the unique nature of the Holocaust.
I appreciate that Motion A1 has the same sincere objective of ensuring that the learning centre remains focused on education about the Holocaust and anti- semitism. That is what the Government want to ensure and intend to do. I am personally committed to that. I was very pleased to meet the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and other noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report. We had a very fruitful and frank exchange, and I think we were at one. I am grateful to them for engaging in constructive discussions about the amendment, including the Government’s view of why the Bill is not the appropriate instrument for creating the safeguards that noble Lords intend to put in place.
As with the well-intentioned amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, we do not consider that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is appropriate for the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the purpose of the Bill is to do two things. First, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to its being built next door, in Victoria Tower Gardens, should it receive planning consent.
Given the narrow function of the Bill, adding a statutory provision along the lines envisaged in the amendment would create a good deal of uncertainty as to its enforceability. In the absence of wider provisions around governance, it would be unclear who would be held accountable for any breach of the requirement and what the consequences would be. Operation of the learning centre in these circumstances would carry risks. It would be difficult for the governing body to be sure what types of activity could fall outside the permitted range, and it would be open to the opponents of the learning centre to challenge any activities and create obstacles through litigation.
Through the discussions with those supporting the amendments, we agreed that a more effective approach would be to focus on the governance arrangements for the body which will, in due course, have responsibility for the operation of the learning centre. The noble Lords have, I hope, agreed to support the removal of the amendment from the Bill in return for certain assurances. My honourable friend the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities gave those assurances in another place yesterday, and I am delighted to repeat them tonight.
“Learning Centre purpose
The main purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.””
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, my purpose in speaking is to try to rescue the central plank of what remains of this memorial. The Lords amendment stated that the sole purpose of the learning centre must be the Holocaust and antisemitism. I have retained pretty much the same wording. No alternative was put forward in the Commons and no reason given for the rejection other than that it is inappropriate. But having listened to Ministers, I can see that a vision of the purpose of the learning centre is emerging that is much more valuable than what has been suggested in the past.
In the past, the promoters have been asked repeatedly what their intent is for the planned learning centre, and they have prevaricated, sometimes suggesting that it will be all about Nazi genocides and at other times that it would include many genocides and wars, including in Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia, Darfur and Bosnia. Of course, originally, the learning centre was planned to be about the British perspective on the Holocaust, which is a rather niche subject and would not be very educational for those who know nothing about it.
“Holocaust” and “genocide” have become general words of disapproval without definition. Throwing them around robs the Holocaust of its specificity, relativises it and diminishes its lessons for the future. It was quite different in origin and execution. The Nazis systematically set about eliminating 6 million children, men and women. That history is a warning to future generations, as we see increasing antisemitism orchestrated today. If a purpose of the memorial and learning centre is not defined as we suggest, there is a risk that it could be put to other, less effective ends.
It seems the Government agree. The point of difference between us is this: if the Government are happy to give assurances about the learning centre, why not enshrine them in the Bill? Ten or 20 years down the line, any assurances given today will be forgotten and the interested parties today will no longer be in their positions or even alive. Without this amendment, reference to the learning centre’s key purpose, the Holocaust and antisemitism, is excluded from the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
All Governments recently have insisted that their funding of Holocaust remembrance in this country may not be limited to Jews; it always has to include other tragic situations. But the Roma have their own memorial in Newcastle, and there is a memorial dedicated to LGBT victims at the National Memorial Arboretum. Only the Jewish memorial has to be diffused and hence deprived of the power that it should have.
Focusing on the Nazi victims makes the centre about the Nazis, Germany and the Second World War—an historical event in the past, not something enduring today—but the Holocaust’s origins go back more than 2,000 years and its roots are still alive today. It is a continuum, not a past event. Including other genocides reduces whatever lesson might be learned to just platitudes about hatred and tolerance, which was rightly and forcefully condemned by the cellist and survivor, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, at the Select Committee.
It is imperative that antisemitism be addressed, not fudged, because it is today that antisemitism is flourishing. A learning centre has to be about Jewish lives today, not just deaths. It is so relatively easy to mourn the dead, but so much harder to understand the living.
We objectors want a proper-sized museum setting the Holocaust in context, as the late Lord Sacks called for. There has been no consultation on any of that.
The Chief Rabbi has rightly called for Holocaust memorialisation not to be politicised, but that is exactly what is happening now. On the part of the Opposition, it has been an attempt to put some substance into the campaign for British values. On this Government’s watch, sadly, Jews are constantly threatened. We know the details —the police’s uneven treatment; welcoming an Egyptian dissident who wants to kill Jews; failing to prosecute people who spout foul hate speech; teachers, doctors, pop stars, lecturers and students getting away with calls for violence against Jews; treating their ally, Israel, as an enemy; and the one-sided recognition of Palestine.
I suspect the Government think that by announcing a Holocaust memorial something will be achieved, but there is not a shred of evidence from the half-dozen existing British memorials and the hundreds around the world that they have any effect on antisemitism. No one has ever done an impact assessment. It is a case of easy sympathy for dead Jews and an excuse for not protecting the living.
All the benefits of a learning centre, as recommended in the Prime Minister’s 2015 commission report, have now been lost. They are all gone. There will be no lecture hall, no learning hub, no professorship, no endowment, no teacher training, no overhaul of Holocaust education. Its location is within a gunman’s range from the bridge, the river and the Millbank windows. To lose even the fundamental essence of the project is unacceptable.
The current assurances about the learning centre are vague, unsustainable and unenforceable. Assurances were requested, and some were rejected, at the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Bill. They are all now forgotten. Unless there is a proper planning application, there will be no chance of consideration of what was agreed. I am asking the Government for more than assurances—something much more concrete that will last down the years. I am asking for legislative support for the aims of the 2015 report to ensure that the core purpose of the learning centre is agreed and maintained. This simple amendment would show the public that the Government have the right aim and the courage of their convictions. I beg to move.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his patient and constructive engagement on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who before him was dealing with this Bill and tried to work things through with equal dedication. As the Minister knows, my preference would have been to have the purpose set in law, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Deech so eloquently set out just now, but it became clear that I was not going to persuade the Government of that case, and it was also clear that there was a strong desire, which I shared, to move forward with cross-party consensus.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances and, in particular, the fact that the Government are committed to ensuring that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism, and that there will be no deviation from this purpose. Having gone through this exercise, at least now, as my noble friend Lady Deech said, we have some clarity about what the purpose of this learning centre should be. No deviation is a key commitment. The reason for insisting on it is not because some of us do not understand that people will and should draw broader lessons from the Holocaust and antisemitism, but what we have seen in recent years is that too often the broader lessons take centre stage, while the distinctively unsettling features of the Holocaust and antisemitism end up being diluted or lost behind feel-good bromides. Avoiding this was the main driving concern for this amendment.
The other concern is that the memorial and the learning centre might become the focal point for political gesturing about the Middle East and anti-Israel protest. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, agrees with us on these concerns and is very keen to address them. I think the commitment to have the purpose clearly and specifically enshrined in the governing documents, while not as good as having it in law, is important, and we need to follow that through. I also welcome his commitment just now to consult on those governing documents. It might perhaps help if he can tell us a bit more about the process that might be envisaged about the contents of the documents and about how Parliament will be kept informed. In particular, it would be useful to have drafts published in advance so that people who have an interest in these matters, and perhaps the House, will have an opportunity for debate and scrutiny. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance to those who, like my noble friend Lady Deech, continue to have reservations.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Deech’s amendment, I of course recognise the very considerable and determined efforts of my noble friend Lord Verdirame, who sought to persuade the Government to accept the amendment made by your Lordships’ House when the Bill was before us previously.
I have some questions for the Minister, but before I ask them, I want to thank him for his very heartfelt and obviously extremely genuine and clear statement of what he sees as the purpose of the learning centre. I totally accept what he said as being his view. My questions relate to the use of the word “inappropriate”. I take it that the use of that word reveals that the words that my noble friend Lady Deech seeks to insert in the Bill—or, indeed, the words originally inserted by your Lordships’ House—are not in any way out of scope of the Bill. It is a matter of choice, of taste even; it is not a matter of law or legislative practice.
Secondly, I invite the Minister to answer the question: does what he has said in any way bind a future Government or even bind the trustees? I suspect that it might be possible to bind the trustees, but not a future Government, but only by expensive litigation, which would be extremely distasteful on this subject, if in the future they chose to change the approach of which the Minister has spoken.
Of course the Bill is about changing planning arrangements for Victoria Tower Gardens—that is necessarily part of it—but it is slightly absurd to suggest that the Bill is just about property, given the basic purpose of having a memorial learning centre in the gardens. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is a memorial and a learning centre, which has the one aim that people will go there—in my view, it is too small and in the wrong place, but I cannot debate that now—to learn about the Holocaust, the Shoah, what happened to Jews in the Second World War, what built up to that Holocaust and to learn the lesson. That is the only purpose of spending many millions on this project.
What is wrong with stating in the Bill the purpose of the project? Those of us who have a personal, a family, background which makes us very close to this proposal, as I have, do not want to see that limited desire for the purpose to be stated in the Bill to be rejected by the use of a vague adjective like “inappropriate”.
I have huge misgivings about why this is being put in Victoria Tower Gardens, what is being put there and whether it will be secure. I absolutely reject the notion that one should be concerned about the current Middle East situation in deciding the words that should be put in the Bill. That, in my view, is unprincipled and should not be allowed to endure.
I earnestly say to the Minister, who is much admired in this House—and I share in that admiration—that he should listen very carefully to this debate before pitching into something that is unacceptable to a very large number of people who have close contact and concerns about this proposal.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I commend the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in this important amendment.
I should say first that I respect 150% the honesty and integrity of the Minister; I trust him 100%, but I do not entirely trust the Government to deliver on this. I thank not just the two Labour Peers who were on the Committee but all those Peers from all sides—the other Labour Members, Cross-Benchers, Lib Dems and Conservatives—who raised many concerns about all aspects of this memorial.
The one thing we were united on was that it had to commemorate the Holocaust—the Shoah—and antisemitism. What concerned us during the Committee was that on many occasions when we pushed the question, “Will this be purely about the Shoah?”, we did not get a categorical answer that it would be. We had many reports from other organisations suggesting that it could include Rwanda, Pol Pot, Darfur and others. Those were horrible genocides, I know that, and we have seen some horrible genocides around the world since the end of the Second World War, but they are not the Shoah, and the memorial should be purely about that.
The noble Lord was right: it would be perfectly in scope of the Bill to insert the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. To reject that on the grounds that it would be inappropriate is rather flimsy. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee and we saw the Government taking extraordinary powers to pass regulations, the Government always said, “Ah yes, but we don’t intend to use them”. The intention is irrelevant; it is what is in statute law that counts. Putting this into statute law would guarantee that it was enforced.
The Minister said, if I remember correctly, “Oh, people could challenge any requirement in a statute”. If people can challenge, with difficulty and judicial review, words in a primary Act of Parliament, then how much easier would it be to challenge a letter from the Government to the administrators or the trustees? That seems ripe for judicial review, whereas a statutory requirement would not be.
That is all I wanted to say. As I say, I entirely trust the Minister and his noble intentions, but I do not trust the Government to be able to deliver on this, either through negligence or a deliberate act on their part. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is absolutely right in seeking to put this in the Bill.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that I am, along with Mr Ed Balls, the joint chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation.
I do not want to make the Minister blush, but I add my tribute to the way he has conducted the negotiations—I think we have arrived at a situation where we can see some progress—but I also associate myself with his words about the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who took this through its various stages with charm and considerable good temper, and we arrived at a better Bill because he was there. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott on my Front Bench for the way this has come about.
I have always been of the view that this memorial should also celebrate Jewish life and Jewish people, because—and I say this as a non-Jew—Jewish culture is a fundamental part of British identity. Without Jews, this country would be a lesser place. You only have visit a place like Poland to see that the very heart of that country has been ripped out by the removal of the Jews.
I supported the original amendment because this is not an academic exercise or a discussion over particular words. There is a real war going on—I do not think it is wrong to say that—which seeks to undermine and subvert the Holocaust and turn it on its head. We have seen two attempts in recent years to do this. First, there was an attempt within the academic board to extend the museum to cover slavery, which the board fought against solidly, leading to one member resigning. Secondly, we saw last year an attempt to equate the Holocaust with the false accusation of a genocide in Gaza. That awful attempt to invert the Holocaust is one of the reasons why fewer schools are commemorating the Holocaust this year than before. The reason for that is that the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust was not prepared to do “Holocaust-lite”. We are not prepared to dilute it.
But this continues. There is some criticism of Holocaust education. We see from Canada that the former attorney-general, Irwin Cotler, someone known to many Members of the House, regarded Holocaust education in this country as the gold standard. But it is only the gold standard if people attend the courses. Some evaluations from UCL and Visions Schools Scotland show that if people go through the course, things change for the good. But if you are a child of a parent who refuses to allow you to go, if you are on a school governing body that refuses co-operation, if teachers pressurise other teachers to prevent it, then those pupils lose out. That is why we see such bad scores on understanding of the Holocaust.
This is not just about the simple teaching of the past; it is about operating some support for our own liberal democracy. I am delighted to report that we are in advanced negotiations with the Shoah Foundation of the United States, which would like us to be one of the main centres for its database of Holocaust testimony. We already have its testimony for British survivors, but this means that we will be a main player on the scene. There is enthusiasm for this because we will get people to that learning centre—I am about to finish—who would normally not go to any other museum.
I welcome the unity. We should put the past behind us and now put our hands out firmly to opponents and those who are in favour, and work together to ensure that we build something we can be proud of.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while the tributes are flowing, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who gave one of the best speeches the first time this amendment was discussed, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
It is truly important to have this discussion and debate, and not just to say that it does not matter. I also do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Khan of Burnley, who have both been absolutely reassuring. My problem is that I am not reassured by reassurances. I still cannot understand why it is only reassurances, and not firmly fixed. It is not reassuring that this cannot be written down, so that we all know it is not going to be sold out. No disrespect, but a lot of sell-outs happen in politics; however, I do not doubt the integrity of the noble Lords I have mentioned.
I just wanted quickly to just note why this matters. The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, made the point when he referred to the fight. I had written down, “The context of this is a fight”. I do a range of education work, although not this issue, but when I go to universities and schools I get into arguments—obviously enough—about all sorts of things. In a debate about whether there is a genocide in Gaza, because I said there is not, and tried to explain it rationally, I was accused of being a Holocaust denier. When I then tried to untangle why that was not the case and why you would use that term, one of the students said, “The problem is that Jews jealously guard the Holocaust. It is part of their colonial entitlement attitude”. That was quite a normal thing to say. I was shocked; nobody else was.
This is a learning centre. Look at the revelations that have come forth in relation to the MP from Labour Friends of Israel who was stopped from going into a school to teach, as well as the subsequent revelations—exposed by Nicole Lampert—about the goings-on in the National Education Union, a teaching union that is almost institutionally hostile to Israel and that has very strong and openly antisemitic elements to it. People who are worried about the Shoah being relativised or diffused are not being paranoid; this is happening.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, can the speakers in this debate concentrate on the issue? The issue is whether this amendment should remain in the Bill. We have had two long speeches that have not addressed that.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, and I will try to address that. I will speak briefly not because the subject is not important—it is such an important subject that there could be no end of words said about it—but because we are focusing on the Commons reason and our response to it. For reasons that I gave at the time, I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. As the Minister pointed out, the purpose of that amendment was to ensure no mission creep—if I can pick up his phrase.
I am one of the Members of this House who have had sustained, constructive and helpful engagement from the Minister, his staff and his team of civil servants. I was pleased to hear the clear and constructive statements that he made, and those made from the Dispatch Box in another place. When we are talking about governance provisions in a trust document, those are legally binding and effective. The nice legal and constitutional question of whether a Government can bind their successor is one thing, but a board of trustees is bound by its constitutional documents.
The important thing to me tonight is that we simply have to get on with this project. I am concerned that there is a risk that further delay will lead not just to further cost but to question marks over the project. We have had a good debate about it, and I think we all share the concern behind the amendment. Indeed, as I say, I supported it. But now we have to get on and not so much complete the job but complete the legislative job and begin the real action on the ground.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, knows the high regard I have for her. She explained her opposition to parts of this project very clearly. We agree on some points and we do not agree on others. Disagreement is part of what this place is all about. I respectfully say, on the proposed amendment to say that the “main purpose” must be the provision of education—as opposed to the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which had the “sole purpose”—that saying “main purpose” is worse than saying nothing. If you say that the main purpose is X, you are almost admitting, accepting and implying that you can also do Y and Z. It is not just nearly like “sole”. In law, there is a clear distinction between “main purpose” and “sole purpose”. In any event, that is not the real focus of my remarks, which is that we need to get on with it, for the reasons I have given.
I put on record my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who started the work on the Bill in this House. Both in the Chamber and out of it, he and I had many conversations about it, all of which were constructive and conducted in the best traditions of this House. We all owe the noble Lord a huge debt of gratitude. Perhaps he might think about this: his name will always be linked to this Bill because he made the rather prosaic statement, noble Lords might think, set out in Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act, to the effect that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights. We can have arguments about Strasbourg jurisprudence—that is not for now—but it struck me, reading those words in the Bill, that it is not just that the provisions of the Holocaust Memorial Bill are compatible with convention rights but that the Holocaust is a reminder of what may happen if fundamental rights are not protected.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but, for the avoidance of doubt, I was in the Chamber when it started—I rushed in—because I wish to hear every word. That is partly because I was first alerted to the provisions of the memorial by Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, my cello teacher Raphael’s mother, and subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, many years ago. This was before 7 October.
The reason I mention this is that, when I was a Member in the other place, I represented a constituency that had extreme views and, as a non-Jew, I felt it was bad enough that I had to hear some of them. It was unbearable. I represented two synagogues, one Orthodox and one progressive, with a very diverse Jewish constituency with a range of political views. Before 7 October the feeling was—I consulted my constituents, and I wanted to put this on record, particularly for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—that they wanted a memorial, as they all said. There were some variations but, overall, people said they wanted the memorial as proposed.
I put to them the arguments that the noble Baroness and I share. Yes, that is partly because I am so aware of Anita’s experience, longevity and wonderful personality, and the fact that, whenever she sees me, she checks my fingers before she says hello to make sure I am still practising the cello—despite everything. I really wanted to hear from my constituents that they also held some of those ambiguities, and they did not. But they were utterly clear about the issue of the purpose of the memorial and the learning centre.
This has been my concern since 7 October, since when, frankly, I have heard many things that reinforce the need for the purpose of the learning centre to be utterly clear, without doubt and without any diminution or dilution. People have been capable of saying the most dreadful things, which implied to me that they had little or no knowledge of the Shoah and why it matters, and why a focus on the Shoah and on antisemitism matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is quite right to say that it is about not just the dead but the living. The risk of further such atrocities right now, specifically to Jews, is so great. I feel that, as a non-Jew, it is even more my duty to say that and to put on record that which many people have been frightened to say—they have been frightened to say the truth. That is why it mattered to me to see this amendment. However, I am afraid I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that seeking to put something in has made it weaker than the original thing that the other place has now rejected. I regret that, but this is the place we are at now.
I share other noble Lords’ determination that we should get this right, and I share the admiration for my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Khan, who have worked so hard to get us to where we are. It feels like a tremendously long time since we began. However, the need for clarity of purpose has not diminished. It has only grown in the intervening years. I wish to put on record, in my name—as a non-Jew, but with former Jewish constituents who I did my best to represent—the doubling, tripling, quadrupling need that there seems to be, not just over the last four years since the atrocities of 7 October but even in the last four weeks, in Australia and in Manchester, given the sort of antisemitism that we hear about every day. We all know, having read the history of the Shoah, that this is how it starts. I share noble Lords’ determination that we should not hold back.
I share the disagreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about where the memorial should be, but we are now past that. I encourage other noble Lords, if they have not already, to go to the Imperial War Museum and hear the beautiful cello playing of my cello teacher, Raphael, and see some of the things that Anita wore and was able to keep with her, which in themselves tell their story. I hope that this memorial and learning centre will tell the story as we need them to, now possibly more than ever.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I too am puzzled why it is not possible to include this wording in the Bill. Given that the Bill makes provision for the construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, why on earth can we not define what the learning centre is for? However, I accept the Minister’s assurances about the purposes.
I have one specific question that I would like to ask the Minister. When we debated this matter in June, I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the issue of the definition of the word “Holocaust”, pointing out that the Holocaust included groups other than Jewish people. Of course, it was primarily an atrocity committed against Jewish people, and that will be the primary purpose of a memorial centre, but other groups were affected too, including LGBT people and disabled people, who were killed in concentration camps. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, assured me that his understanding was that the Holocaust did include such groups. Some of the contributions from noble Lords today make me wonder whether that is a shared assumption.
Since this debate is about clarity and definition, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance, on the back of the assurances he has given about the purpose of the learning centre, that his and the Government’s understanding is that the Holocaust included the murder of other groups at the same time, as part of the activities of the Nazi regime, and that that should not be excluded or considered to be mission creep, to use the words that some noble Lords have used in concern about the absence of a definition from the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me that same reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave me in June.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was right to admonish us and to remind your Lordships of the need to stay focused on the matter in hand at this stage of the Bill’s progress. However, it is seven months since the Division which saw noble Lords backing the sensible amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am heartened to hear about the fruitful discussions that he has had with Ministers and officials about that matter in the intervening months. If noble Lords have had other remarks to make, it is because those extra months have, as we have heard, sadly added further examples of the importance of looking at this and getting it right. I agree with so many of the remarks I have heard.
My purpose in rising is to ask the Deputy Leader of the House about an issue that was not before us when the Bill was last debated in your Lordships’ House. He will know that the Crime and Policing Bill, which is also before your Lordships’ House, proposes to make it a criminal offence to climb on certain specified monuments and memorials. Schedule 12 to that Bill sets out 24 memorials that are listed at grade 1 and one further memorial that is not listed at grade 1, which is the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, time is passing, so I hope noble Lords will not mind if we move to the winding speeches now.
Noble Lords will know, because I said it many times during previous stages of the Bill, that this is a free vote for my colleagues, so my comments reflect my own views, although I know that the vast majority of my colleagues share them.
I have always thought that the words on the front of the Bill should reflect the policies inside it. I therefore find it difficult to understand, in one respect, why the Government will not accept this purpose clause. If you go to the Public Bill Office with the intention of inserting a purpose clause into a Bill, they usually draw in their breath and say, “Governments don’t like a purpose clause”—and that is Governments of all colours, by the way. However, that is very hard to understand in this particular case, because we all know which Holocaust we are talking about. The Minister and the Government cannot be surprised that people have lost a little confidence in that focus because of all the other things that were raised at the earlier stages of this Bill—other tragic events in the history of mankind.
The Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were slaughtered, is the biggest blot in the history of mankind and we must never forget it. That is why, across all Benches, we supported the first purpose of the Bill, which was to enable the Government to promote and fund a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. What we disagreed about was the second part, which was the removal of the legislative barrier to putting that learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, mainly because we did not think that the gardens would do it justice, as it needs to be a high-quality memorial. I think we all hope that, in the fullness of time, that is what it turns out to be.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership in this Bill, and agree with her that you can commemorate the dead by celebrating the lives of the living and the people who survived. There were millions who suffered and, even if they did not lose their lives, they lost their livelihoods and the ability to have children. Many of them did have children, however, and their descendants contribute an enormous amount to the life of this country, the other countries in Europe and other parts of the world.
I will just touch on what the Minister has said. He has given us a very clear reassurance that the purpose of this legislation will remain commemorating the Holocaust and learning the lessons to tackle antisemitism. It has been said that that is not good enough: it should be on the face of the legislation. I have a little more confidence than some Members of the House do in clear statements from the Dispatch Box by a Government Minister, and I know that if Governments deviate from what they have said, they can be challenged. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, to make that challenge often requires considerable legal costs, so it is far better, if you want to be absolutely clear, to put it in the Bill. I ask the Minister: why not?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I contributed to earlier Holocaust Memorial Bill debates, and I shall speak briefly in this one. I was moved to do so mainly by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who made the excellent point that the amendment talks about
“The main purpose of any Learning Centre”,
which dilutes the original amendments and raises the possibility that there might be other purposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, knows, although we have disagreed on a number of things, I am an enormous admirer of all the hard work she has done to support the concept of Holocaust education, and I put on record my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It has been heartwarming to listen to him and I admire him for the work he did in his position.
The point I want to make to both the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the Minister is to ask for clarification. In the Bill and in the amendments, there is reference to “a Holocaust”, but the particular paragraph that bites, Clause 1(1)(a), talks about
“the construction on, over or under any land of … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”,
and that is crystal clear. The centre for learning has to be relating to the memorial. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech: why is there any uncertainty about this? Is it not clear in the Bill that it has to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, now is the time to move on.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Collins. Back in 2014, I supported this Bill in the House of Commons. It had cross-party support—it is Parliament at its best when we all agree—and I am slightly surprised that, 12 years later, we are still having these debates. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson says, we really need to get on with it. I believe it is the right development in the right place, it is the right plan and it is at the right time.
However, I have a question for the Minister. We are talking about a visitor centre and noble Lords will see the number of schoolchildren that attend this place on a daily basis, so it is important that we get the content of that visitor centre right. What sort of content will it have? What relevance will it have and how will it come across to people of a younger generation? It will attract a broad spectrum of the population, but it is very important that we educate future citizens about the Holocaust, so I am interested specifically in school visits—how will the visitor centre cater for those?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have had extensive debates on the Bill and I know there are strong views across the House on a whole range of issues relating to the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We were right to debate this important Bill in full and scrutinise its every aspect, but now we have just one issue before us. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on his success on Report and we were delighted to give him our support in that Division. We have worked closely with him and in discussions with the Government to secure the concession that the Government have made in response to his amendment.
It is very welcome that Ministers have confirmed that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism and that there will be no question of it drifting from that purpose. That commitment is an important step towards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am pleased that he and the Government have come to an agreement on this, and we will continue to support him.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for the constructive way in which he has engaged with me and other noble Lords to get to this point. Like many other noble Lords, I give very big thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. He was a joy to work with as we went through what was, in the early stages, a difficult—probably the most difficult —Bill I have ever been involved in, and I thank him for that.
Next week, on Tuesday, it is Holocaust Memorial Day. I believe it is fitting that tonight we take what I hope is one very big step forward in the delivery of this memorial to the 6 million men, women and children who perished in the Shoah.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this evening’s debate. I do not want to delay us too much, but I want to reflect on a number of comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who has been doing excellent work on Holocaust education, and I have followed him in many places, trying to make sure that his message was repeated. I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, earlier today and I mentioned that I went to Bratislava to attend a memorial event in a square, but it was not limited to that. We then went to the concentration camp, the transportation centre, and I saw at first hand where people, including children and babies, were kept. The impact of that will always live with me. A memorial is not enough, which is why the learning centre is so vital.
I also want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we cannot bind a future Government. We wanted to look at how we could ensure that the purpose was fully maintained. The Bill does not have all the governing structure or all the stuff that we need. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, but his advice about how we can enshrine the purpose in those trust agreements was essential.
The most important thing—and we have heard this today—is that we leave tonight united in one purpose: that we do not forget the 6 million who were murdered or the consequences of the Nazi crimes. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, he knows where I stand on the crimes of the Nazis. Of course, the very first people they imprisoned and murdered were trade unionists who were standing up for workers’ rights, and we need to understand that. I was also struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said to me this morning: that antisemitism did not start with the Nazi crimes. It has been with us for 2,000 years. We need to ensure that we understand the impact, not only of the past but on the living, and I think she is right.
Why have we not put it in the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said it all. In the narrow function of the Bill, adding a statutory provision along the lines envisaged could create difficulties and uncertainty in its enforceability, and I want to see us united on the way to do that. The noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wolfson, have helped me in how we can deal with that.
I also reassure noble Lords that further consideration will be given to the different forms of governance which might be right for the memorial. As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has asked me to do, we will give an assurance that those proposals will be published, including the governance documents that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to.
I understand the points the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has made. He has made them fully in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hanson is here, who can actually take these points up on how memorials are protected.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister, whose eloquence and understanding is very touching and altogether praiseworthy.
I have just two small points to make. There need not have been any delay. There need not even have been a delay if the Government had accepted the amendment. Much has been spoken about delay. This memorial is not for the survivors; it is for future generations. We are not going to rush something through so that people who are now 90 or 100 will live to see it. They already have other memorials.
I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson, on the definitional problems. Whatever you express, there are going to be definitional problems, which have been exacerbated in the past few years—because despite what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, there has been all this talk about Darfur, Bosnia, and other genocides and so on, and it is only now, under the leadership of the Minister, that we have some clarity.
I felt I had to drive this forward for the sake of my parents, my grandparents and all the others who are looking down, who would never forgive me if I did not push this as far as I can to get a memorial that honours them—which I have doubts about, frankly. But I have done everything I can within my power for their sakes, because I know very well—as a child, they told me—what they went through. I have done every last thing I can.
I can see no point in calling a vote now, and I will withdraw the Motion, but I insist on continuing for their sakes and for all the other families, some of whom are in this Chamber. We must get something that honours them and protects today’s Jews. I will not give up on that, but I withdraw the Motion, and I thank the Minister.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:27 - Division on Amendment 99 - Ayes: 53 / Noes: 116 - Amendment 99 disagreed.
Baroness Barran
“Free milk entitlement: child minder agencies(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (regulations, orders and schemes), amend regulation 18 of the Welfare Food Regulations 1996 (milk or dried milk for children in day care) to ensure that children provided with daycare by childminders registered with child minder agencies are entitled to free milk.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is a very different topic from what we were discussing before the dinner break—we move to nursery milk. Only in your Lordships’ House could one say those words.
My Amendment 98 would bring childminders who are registered with a childminding agency into the scope of the free nursery milk scheme. As your Lordships know, the nursery milk scheme provides a free portion of milk every day to any child under the age of five attending a registered childcare setting; it is a long-standing initiative dating back to the 1940s. The legislation underpinning the scheme was written before childminder agencies—CMAs—came into existence, and a later drafting oversight meant that milk subsidies were not mentioned in the legislation that created CMAs in 2014. For a decade, childminders registered through CMAs have been unable to claim milk subsidies, while those registered directly with Ofsted can; that is despite the fact that all childminders are Ofsted regulated and operate under the same regulations.
The loophole has been widely acknowledged as a clear legislative oversight. Two successive Governments, including my own, have pledged to fix it, but sadly no action has been taken. As a result, more than 10,000 children are currently missing out on free milk. As CMA-registered childminders make up a growing share of the workforce, the number of children affected increases every year. A simple legislative update would close this loophole and restore parity across the early years sector. I hope that the Minister can do better and go further than previous Governments—including my own—and commit not only to addressing this but to giving the House a “no later than” date for doing so. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The purpose of Amendment 104 is to ensure that no eligible family misses out on the Healthy Start payments, as there is evidence that many families have not been aware of this important extra support and have therefore not applied for it. I have tabled this amendment again because I was not content with the Minister’s response in Committee, but I thank her for her subsequent letter.
During that debate, the Minister said that she could not accept my amendment because the Healthy Start programme requires an eligibility check as the funds come in the form of a prepaid card. This, she said, is a financial product and therefore requires the recipient to accept the terms. Will the Minister please note that my amendment, in proposed new subsection (3), takes note of that fact and requires that the eligible person must be able to opt out of the scheme if they wish. That, of course, implies that they also opt in.
This could be done by rejecting the terms of the card offered, rather than accepting them. However, the Minister went on to say that to increase uptake, which she agreed is important, the NHS Business Services Authority will write to those eligible to encourage them to apply to the scheme.
Three questions arise from that answer. First, if the NHS Business Services Authority is going to write to those who are eligible, it must have already found out who is eligible. If that is the case, why can those people not be enrolled, informed that they have been enrolled and, finally, given the chance to opt out if they wish? I cannot imagine that many will.
Secondly, now that the Minister has laid Amendments 111 and 112, which I am sure she will explain in a few minutes, it is clear that government departments will now be able to share information for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for free school meals. I hope we can assume, therefore, that the NHSBSA will also be able to get information from other departments to ascertain whether the families are eligible for Healthy Start. If the NHSBSA is going to write to eligible people, will it at least enclose an application form and prepaid envelope to make it very easy to apply and accept the terms? There should be no need for the recipient to have to supply any further evidence of their eligibility, because the NHSBSA will already have established that, or it would not have written to them in the first place. What possible further checks are needed?
Thirdly, can the Minister say how long this programme will take to get up and running? Will she undertake to report to Parliament about to what extent this activity has improved uptake over the first year of its operation? I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that matter.
The purpose of my Amendment 113 is to ensure that schools and caterers are supported to provide adequate, affordable and nutritious food at breakfast and lunch to all the children at the school, whether they are on free school meals or they pay. I have laid the amendment again because there are several questions to ask about the Minister’s Committee stage reply and there have been developments since Committee.
The amendment requires the current school standards review to be completed within 12 months of Royal Assent and that a supportive scheme be set up to ensure compliance with those standards. This timescale is not a lot to ask, given that the then relevant Minister in the Department for Education promised me almost a year ago, when I discussed with him the recommendations of your Lordships’ House’s report Recipe for Health: A Plan to Fix Our Broken Food System, that the review would happen. It took until 5 June 2025 for an announcement that consultations would take place. Oh, how slowly the wheels of government turn. However, the Minister promised in Committee to share the details of this consultation in due course. Can she say now when “due course” will be? She said that it will include how to ensure whether schools comply with the updated standards. Currently, there is very little inspection and enforcement, the responsibility having been given to school governors. It must be said that some schools provide a very good standard of food but others do not. It is not always their fault.
Research carried out by Professor Greta Defeyter of Northumbria University has shown that larger schools, especially those in areas where not too many pupils are eligible for free school meals, sometimes manage to benefit from economies of scale, and some actually make a profit from the allowance they get for free school meals. However, this is not always spent on improving the general quality of food in the school.
However, there are others, particularly small schools in areas of high deprivation, in which the free school meal budget has to be supplemented from the education budget. There is certainly nothing left over to improve the food overall. This is crazy, given the importance of good food to child health and development. There are certainly questions to be asked about how the allocation of funds works—not just in theory but taking into account the facts on the ground. However, I am talking about the quality and affordability of all food served in schools, not just the free school meals. This amendment is not about free school meal entitlement. It is more important that free school meal children get a nutritious meal at lunchtime because their parents may not be able to give them one in the evening—or sometimes any meal at all.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Barran and to associate myself with Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whom it is a pleasure to follow.
The Welfare Food Regulations 1996 lay out in astonishing detail the importance of milk to those who were entitled to it for the early years. While there are different regulatory regimes in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, it is clear that certain children in certain circumstances are entitled to dried milk or fresh milk in prescribed portions per week, be it according to age; to those whose families are on financial assistance for low income; to the Healthy Start, which would include expectant mothers and those with children otherwise under four—and, of course, some people of any age, including children, but not necessarily children, with certain physical and mental difficulties.
I think it is common ground on all sides of this House that the provision of milk as part of a healthy diet is a good thing. But the regulations provide for this milk to be dispensed, if I can use that word, in maternity and healthcare centres, as part of the National Health Service, but also in other welfare and food distribution centres. But the world has changed, and these settings are no longer the only places where people access help.
The NHS, which may work from nine to five, or a food distribution centre, which may open for only a few mornings a week, are not necessarily the only places nowadays where people can access the help they need. Those settings are just not as thick on the ground as they used to be at times that are convenient to families.
I do not deny the good work of those settings, but others are available under the same regulations, and some of them are even paid for by the state. My noble friend Lady Barran laid out the importance of childminders and childminder agencies as a part of the mix that helps provide time and space for families to get into work so they can earn and improve their family circumstances, with the flexibility to take different jobs, which may be available on a part-time, out-of-hours or seasonal basis.
These settings—the childminder agencies—are relevant. They are local, flexible and professional, and we have heard that they are regulated. But for some reason, they are not trusted by these regulations to dispense milk in liquid form or in dried powder. It just serves no purpose to exclude them. This is why these amendments are so important: to exclude the most accessible settings from the ability to provide milk and other healthy foods is not just bad for them, it is bad for the children.
I cannot understand for the life of me why one setting is good and the other is bad. But there is another string to this argument: that it is bad not only for the children and the settings themselves, but for the economy. There are 1.8 million dairy cows in this country, with a herd size average of 225, and that number has doubled in the last 50 years since 1975.
Significant parts of the West Country are devoted to dairying—milk production, cheese production and so forth. I see my noble friend Lady Williams sitting in front of me on the Front Bench. She is from the Cheshire plains and will know better than anybody the importance of the work dairy farmers do, rising early to milk and care for their cow herds, come rain or shine, suffering as they have in the last two months a 30% reduction in the price of liquid milk from the dairies.
It is not just the children who need all the help they can get; it is our dairy farmers too. While this is, of course, a subsidiary point to the main thrust of Amendment 98 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, it is a consideration. The main thrust is that we must stop this arbitrary division that forms gaps between different sorts of settings, saying that only the NHS can be trusted to dispense milk, and that childminders and the CMAs are not to be trusted.
If we really have the interests of the child at heart, we need to have as many settings as possible that can dispense good food and milk and associated products, at times that are convenient for the busy lives families lead, rather than just straitjacketing them into the nine to five and thinking that is good enough.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support both amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in particular Amendment 113 on the school food improvement scheme. I am incredibly glad to see how many steps the Government are taking, but there are still things we need to work on. The noble Baroness referred to Professor Defeyter’s work on the finances and how, with big schools versus small schools, a lot of the money gets lost. It also happens with councils that are so cash-strapped that they sometimes take some of the money.
We are still living in a country where we have a postcode lottery on food. Some schools do amazing jobs with limited resources and some schools really do not. Nobody can now dispute the fact that the free school lunch, or any school lunch, is incredibly important to children. Yet we hear too often about schools that allow only 20 minutes for lunch, in which time you are meant to play, make a call, go to the toilet and have lunch, which is clearly going to be seen as a secondary part of a school.
It is also secondary in that the school catering departments at the moment get very little training. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a scheme in the department being run by Chefs in Schools and a lot of philanthropic organisations to actively train chefs to go into schools and work with them to improve the quality. For the same amount of money, you can have really good quality and transform children’s lives.
Finally, nursery is equally important in getting kids eating the right stuff right from the beginning. I absolutely support that we need milk, but children also get fed there and those meals tend to fall outside of anything right now, as far as I can see. I would be interested to know what the Government will do.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in the third group cover free school meals, the nursery milk scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and school food. Ensuring that every child has access to nutritious food and support is fundamental to their health, development and ability to learn. We know that good nutrition starts early and that simple measures, whether access to milk or balanced school meals, can make a lasting difference.
I turn to government Amendments 111 and 112. Last year the Government announced that from September 2026, every child in a household receiving universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. This decisive action will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and save families around £500 per child each year. The amendments will enshrine this crucial commitment in law and ensure its successful delivery.
A child is currently eligible for free school meals if they attend a state-funded school in England, their household is in receipt of universal credit and the household’s income is less than £7,400. Government Amendment 112 creates a new category of free school meals, to be known as expanded free school meals, which will apply to that cohort of children in receipt of universal credit but with a household income greater than £7,400. This will ensure that free school lunches are provided on request to all pupils from households in receipt of universal credit and that state-funded schools in England will be under a duty to provide meals to those eligible children.
We will support over half a million more children in this way. Providing the most disadvantaged children with a healthy lunch each school day will help secure their education and improve their future prospects.
Government Amendment 111 will deliver the practical implementation of the free school meals expansion. The Department for Education relies on the provisions of the Education Act 2005 to process income and benefits data from other government departments so that it can check and confirm a child’s eligibility for free school meals. The scope of this power is, however, limited. This amendment will amend the 2005 Act to enable the department to identify whether a child is eligible under the current free school meals criteria or the expanded free school meals criteria and then communicate this to local authorities, parents and schools so that they in turn may determine whether a child is also eligible for other education benefits and funding.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, responds, I would like a small point of clarification from the Minister. I very much welcome the government amendments and congratulate the Government on what they are doing on free school meals. This is all very welcome, but in introducing it, the Minister said that the additional cohort would get a free school meal on request. She mentioned how the Government will make it easier for families to find out whether they are eligible, but can she say a little more about how they have to apply? Will it be as easy as possible?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Absolutely, it will be. First, by virtue of the fact that it is now open to all those on universal credit without the £7,400 cut-off, it is much clearer to families, to those supporting them and to schools who is eligible. Secondly, as I said, the provisions that enable the sharing of information, and therefore eligibility checks, will now also be open to parents themselves, not just through local authorities.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her encouragement. I am not sure whether I wanted the accolade of being the anti-Thatcher milk donor, but I will take whatever she gives me.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment. I managed to write down only “within six months” before the next thing she said—unfortunately, the ink in my pen ran out—so clearly parliamentary time will be available. I thought the Minister made encouraging remarks about the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I feel that the noble Baroness might appreciate a few lines to expand on her final question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Post-removal support for parents to prevent further removals(1) Where a child—(a) is removed from the care of a parent further to any order made pursuant to—(i) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders),(ii) section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement orders),(iii) section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (adoption orders),(iv) section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (special guardianship orders), or(b) becomes a looked after child further to an arrangement or order made pursuant to—(i) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: voluntary arrangements), or(ii) section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (secure accommodation orders),the local authority must provide support to the parent, where the parent is identified as being at risk of experiencing further child removals.(2) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the local authority must ensure that the support provided—(a) follows an evidence-informed approach and aims to reduce the risk of further child removals, and(b) is in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause aims to make sure that local authorities offer evidence-informed support to reduce the risk of parents who have one child removed having future children removed.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure whether anyone can remember the first group at this late hour, but I will be testing the opinion of the House. The Minister said that legislators always turn to legislation as the answer. There are quite a few things in the Bill that do not need to be there, but I think this does need to be in legislation. She also said she felt that it would create a rigid model that could not evolve, but we worked hard on the language of the amendment to refer to an “evidence-informed approach” as opposed to “evidence-based”, which I am told means that it can evolve with the evidence. For those two reasons, and thinking about the desperate situation of women who have multiple children removed from their care, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“Establishment of Child Protection Authority(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.(2) The purpose of the Authority is to—(a) improve practice in child protection,(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection,(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards, and(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.(3) The Authority must act with a view to—(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the Child Protection Authority for England.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, it is very late, so I will not go through the five pages of my speech. However, I will speak to Amendments 102 and 103 in my name.
The arguments have been well rehearsed previously. I thank the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for meeting some of us to go through the issues. He is very clear on the so-called postcode lottery of child in need reports that are often produced for children. In some areas it is as high as 70%, and the research I did found that in other areas it is 20%. The Children’s Commissioner found that the lowest percentage of young people known to social care in some local authority areas was 3%.
As we have heard earlier and in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, that number cannot just be demographics. My suggestion and the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestion has been, and we continue to maintain this, that we need some national thresholds so that we do not have a big gap in the care that young people get, depending on where they live. A child in need report is quite crucial.
I understand that the Minister in the other place is very sympathetic to the issue but does not see this as a way forward. Late into this evening and night, I hope I can use my power of persuasion to convince the Minister in front of me to be willing to at least continue to talk and see whether we can find a way forward.
Amendment 102 is about establishing a child protection body that would work to improve child protection practice, advise government and the sector, and conduct inspections. This is an important issue, in addition to the one I raised earlier. I do not intend to speak any further, but I would welcome a response from the Minister. Given that we agree that there is a problem, would she now be willing at least to look at whether we can reinvestigate the national thresholds? I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area.
Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to.
On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I do not intend to prolong proceedings any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.